I think it's too early to tell since it hasn't really propagated to the "server" distributions yet. The real test for systemd will probably come with RHEL 7 and/or the next Debian release (if it gets integrated).
The big problem I see is that systemd is trying to be the black monolith of init systems. Gnome has (or had) a dependency on it, so even if Slackware stays away from it, there's a risk that some other upstream projects might not build without it. systemd also has some weird dependencies of its own, such as including a web server: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux....a.devel/169082 Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
The whole discussion is completely irrelevant to Slackware and off-topic here and there's nothing changed since the last one. Why I'm even answering someone with a fake account and a single post? |
Quote:
On the original topic: I don't like some things in systemd either, but that is no reason to start an inflammatory thread, especially with the obvious FUD that comes up all the time in similar threads. I don't know what you mean with obscure, but systemd is not badly documented and since at least two enterprise distros will use it in their next release I highly doubt that it is as unstable as you claim. |
Well, Lennart isn't getting any love here due to how fickle he is with projects and how he feels he has to stick his nose in everything, stir the pot, then walk away.
His track record more than speaks volumes about how many people feel about him. If and when Slackware will ever get systemd is a mystery known only but to Patrick, and I'm fairly certain hes been testing it and keeping a close eye on it's progress, but hasn't committed to it for one reason or another, probably due to his target audience being minimalists and power users as well as system administrators who like the Keep it Stupidly Simple approach to Slackware and it's BSD scripting. LFS won't be getting it either. They tried to import it with 7.3, but it really made a mess. A book to built it exists but you have to build and rebuild so much against it it's ridiculous. Quote:
Quote:
GNOME already poisoned themselves, hence why DropLine and MATE exist. If KDE wants to poison themselves also, then let them. Most stuff still only requires the DBus anyway, so why systemd would be absolutely required is just asinine. We can all get along with alternative DEs like Xfce, MATE, Trinity, LXDE, and others. Only a small fraction of systemd is not well documented, the rest has fairly decent documentation but logind and ConsoleKit, which have the worst documentation to date. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am not in a position to make more informed comments, cause I have not used it or read about it. |
Quote:
It's the new "Linux standard base". If you want Unix, you can move to OS X. :) Solaris may qualify as Unix, too. Or the BSDs. That's why they are "a thing of the past", ya know? ;) |
Quote:
We ignore or discard that Unix heritage at great loss. |
Quote:
But - here's something that I've been wanting to say for quite some time now: When reading a developer's project page, I usually understand "the itch they're trying to scratch". But with Wayland and systemd I am completely at a loss what it is they're trying to achieve. For example from Wayland's wikipedia page: Quote:
On the other hand - there are glaring bugs in programs that we use daily, which are not being addressed. https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla...g.cgi?id=67787 |
Quote:
BTW: I'm not using LibreOffice, I stick with OpenOffice and an age-old StarOffice 5.2 (I run the Windows version of it, because the Linux version doesn't work anymore due to glibc breakage). |
BSD, Solaris, Illumos, and HP-UX are not really systems of the past. Just becasue they aren't as mainstream in the UNIX-world as Linux is, doesn't make them any less relevent.
Just becasue they don't support the same software and hardware as Linux does, doesn't make them any less important. When you get into servers and networking you see systems like FreeBSD taking over and where high capacity Datacenters are concerned you'll start seeing Solaris, HP-UX, and such. Yes, using the Windows terminologies is a poor excuse of a way to describe Linux daemons, but systemd is effectively duplicating on main service found in Windows by trying to be the main all-purpose daemon. Systemd, is trying to effectively duplicate svchost.exe, which has ballooned the requirements of Windows since Vista to staggering levels by trying to take in more and more responsibility. And since when do any distributions truly conform to the LSB compliancy? The Linux Standard Base, and all are a loosely knit collaborations in designs of what a Linux system should be, but isn't required to be. No Linux distribution has to conform to any set level of standards other than providing the basic GNU core system and tools and not violating the GNU licenses by including non-GNU compatible in license software in a primary build for distribution. The Red Hat model is yet again one of many loosely knit specifications for a Linux distribution. There's also the Debian model, the Slackware model, the LFS model, and various other models of Linux standards. As far as what Patrick has publicly stated, he has only stated that he is looking into systemd, but hasn't made a choice of wether or not he will include it, but will, through speculation only, ONLY include systemd when and if the code has become viable enough to be of general usage, stable enough to be a true long term solution, and wants to make sure systemd is put into Slackware correctly. The if, and when, we get it, are simply just that, if and when, and so far that if and when are just that, if and when. |
Quote:
Still aside from the technical specs, I'd think one of the main problems with Systemd is Lennart Poettering's loud affective cretinism and blatant immaturity. Whenever I read one of his blog posts or Google plus discussion threads, the only thing that happens is that my blood pressure goes up by a few notches. From a merely human point of view, the Slackware-plus-Systemd combination feels like including a lame college standup comedian in a great Shakespeare drama. Which may explain the foul eggs and the rotten tomatoes in discussions about Systemd. ;) |
@ReaperX7
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
In fact, for me; When i last used Arch Linux on my desktop i had a pretty basic system with preload and some backgrounded things, the boot time (with xorg automatically launching) took 13 seconds from bios to X. After a fresh install with systemd on Arch, it took around 20 seconds to boot. I would use slackware for comparison, but i've never wanted to manually install systemd onto anything at all :) If systemd can only vouch for faster boot times, then it is literally useless. In my experience, it can't even do that. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You can use Weston without systemd-logind but then you are going to have trouble with session switching and running it without root. David Herrmann made four insightful blog posts about the subject. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 PM. |