I really like this "forcibly deprecate" stuff.
You may notice that Lennart Poettering wrote the announcement about the udev switch in May. And yes, of course systemd will have a kdbus userspace part, otherwise the switch wouldn't make any sense. The fun part: while his wording IMHO is off with the "systemd-haters" part he clearly says "We will make this change, if you want to use future versions of udev you will have to come up with a kdbus userspace, but we give you an early warning, so that you have enough time for this!". Now tell me how many discussions you have seen in those last 6 months about this move and how many actual projects to do something like that you can find. The answer to first should be clear, the anwser to the latter is zero. In 6 months not one project formed for providing a kdbus userspace and I would not be surprised if there will still none when the change happens.

@ReaperX7: of course kdbus didn't make it in yet, the patches by Mr. Kroah-Hartman were not meant to make it in (kdbus is aimed to be accepted at the earliest in 3.19, but likely later), they were submitted for review. Getting patches for code submitted for review is normal.
Your wording once again shows that you aren't interested in an honest discussion, but rather in discrediting the systemd developers with any means possible. The problem is: you do it in so obvious ways that it is hard to take you serious anymore. You should stop doing that.

2 members found this post helpful.

Usually programs aren't meant to use udev. udev is meant to react to hardware events and change your system accordingly. For doing this it may be necessary to communicate to other parts of the system, for example to tell the kernel to load necessary firmware for the device, or to tell the init system to start a backup service if a specific storage device is plugged in. At this time udev is using Netlink for communication, in the future it will use kdbus.
Programs communicating kdbus, like udev, will not talk to systemd, they will directly use kdbus, systemd is used for setting up and starting kdbus.

How does forcefully pushing out viable projects for systemd only software help GNU/Linux and non-Linux systems? Change for the sake of change isn't beneficial Tobi. You're basically saying that "It's not broken, but we'll fix it anyway, and say that it's broken, but only to our design."

Why should projects like Gentoo even be on a six month notice to come up with an alternative? The alternative is distribution after distribution standing up to Lennart and crew, saying a big public "no".

Didn't we already discuss that change, coding, and doing things for the sake of doing them when nothing is wrong, broken, or in need of repairs, bad on all levels and should never be done by anyone sensible or sane, and trying to force those issues only gets you a gigantic pushback that hurts you worse in the end?

4 members found this post helpful.

He sounds like a kid who grew up using windows.

"Now admins have to make those decisions (about what starts) and now (with systemd) the computer can make those decisions."

I'd say he narrowly missed being a great windows developer.

3 members found this post helpful.

Maybe we should be referring to it as system-D because that apparently annoys LP. And as Linus says "I think people who get offended should be offended often."


(edit: oops sorry, quoted wrong person)

1 members found this post helpful.

systemd is *not* change for the sake of change. It is not (completely, anyway) an example of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome -- it is a fundamental paradigm shift in the design of Linux-based operating systems. There are numerous problems that it attempts to solve that do not currently have a good solution. That is to say, we are not in Linux eden right now so stop pretending we are! Things are not perfect and they never have been. Constant change in some form or other has been the very ethos of the larger Linux development community for many years, for better or worse. systemd does not change that (and indeed merely follows the trend).

Whether or not systemd is the *right* solution to those numerous problems is a matter of opinion but to write it off as being 'change for the sake of change' is patently false. It attempts (poorly, and in an overreaching manner) to make things better. If you are going to go on for post after post, essay after essay, about the evils of systemd, please, for the love of "Bob" keep it accurate and insightful; doing anything less worsens the case against systemd by allowing its proponents to write off the opponents because the vast majority of posts are either factually incorrect or incoherent (most of which are written by an obnoxiously loud minority).

If I were of a lesser constitution I would have switched to the pro-systemd camp just to avoid being associated with the aforementioned obnoxiously loud minority.

(And just to cut off a predictable response at the pass, I am NOT saying that people opposed to systemd adoption shouldn't 'stand up for themselves', but that they should do so in an appropriate manner, using facts, well-researched examples, and real insight in order to elevate the level of debate.)

3 members found this post helpful.

I've often wondered what "political correctness" would mean for software, and now I see how truly bad being politically correct with software is and what is has done to Linux.

Forcing GNU/Linux to remold itself into another Windows-wannabe to try and compete for a desktop marketshare it will never have, is futile. I honestly remember Windows users talking about trying out Ubuntu because it was the most Windows-like GNU/Linux distribution back when Vista was being put through the grinders, and yet does GNU/Linux still have a marketshare on par with Windows or OS-X? Not even close.

All I know is, I do not want to use CoreOS on any level, nor do I want to use any Red Hat operating systems. I've been there, done that, and would like to avoid going back to it at all costs. My experience with Red Hat was one most foul.

Just because Windows has the highest desktop operating system marketshare doesn't mean anything. It only means Bill Gates was that much more clever a salesman than Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, and Richard Stallman were, or maybe ever could be. It also doesn't mean GNU/Linux has to dethrone Window or try. GNU/Linux users have been plenty happy over the years to use an alternative system for free, the same as BSD users.

The biggest flaw GNU/Linux faced or faces, is not an init problem, a service management problem, or any other issue claimed by Red Hat, Sievers, Poeterring, or any one else. The biggest flaw of GNU/Linux is the lack of willingness by commercial companies to develop software applications, games, utilities, etc. for GNU/Linux and BSD systems. Only one company sought to end that flaw by redeveloping commercial ports of software, namely Loki, and they didn't last long at all because nobody helped, funded, or contributed to them to further their efforts.

Even if we did get CoreOS or GnomeOS, or whatever systemd-esque-OS out there, it's not going to be able to compete if it has no software for it if companies turn their nose up at it.

Windows has a huge marketshare because of Gates marketing it, but also because companies wrote software for it, the same with Apple, Steve Jobs, and OS-X with their smaller marketshare, but if GNU/Linux gets no ports, it's not going to even get looked at. Free Software is nice, looks good on paper, and is budget friendly, but companies who write software, are going to want to make money, and while the GPL does grant the right to profit, it exposes trade secrets, and no company out there with a monopolized market is going to reveal trade secrets by using a GNU software based for development, so if systemd is going to solve any "problems", why can't solve that problem, the biggest, longest running issue of GNU/Linux?

2 members found this post helpful.

Ok, I'm going to call you on that one. Are you saying that the majority of Slackware users *want* to switch to systemd? That statement is the kettle calling the pot.

2 members found this post helpful.

I have a question about systemd's use of binary log files.

C finds the end of the file and appends the data - no difference between binary or text except for the extra char conversions for a text file. So I don't see the big advantage of binary over text "logs".

Text "config" files on the other hand, if binary, could be pulled directly into a struct but a text config file has to be parsed.

But LP defends binary logs yet has no issue with text config files. So why does systemd do it this way?

That 'longest running issue of GNU/Linux' is, at least as you have put it (that commercial software doesn't exist for GNU/Linux because GNU/Linux is GPL'ed -- which makes no sense since proprietary software can run happily on any system; the lack of commercial software is for other reasons entirely) is an ideological 'flaw' with open source software itself (again, assuming your description is correct, which IMO it isn't). What does systemd have to do with any of this? This is an unsolvable problem so I guess we just shouldn't develop/use GNU/Linux at all? This is like saying, "I was going to fix a crappy video card driver, but since Linux has bigger problems I may as well not bother". Weird (incoherent) argument.

By 'obnoxiously loud minority' I meant merely that few people post much, little of which has value. I did not mean to imply that said minority had different *views* on the matter, though I can understand that 'silent/loud majority/minority' is an oft-used expression meaning as such; perhaps I should have avoided the term altogether to remove any ambiguity.

1 members found this post helpful.

May be I missed something but till now no one touched cgroups. IMO one of the main advantages of systemd over sysvinit is the way it uses cgroups to slice the system resources. In theory it looks nice. If someone played with this stuff please share your experience how systemd under heavy load compares to sysvinit.

Cheers

1 members found this post helpful.

We do have a Docker package in SBo that works with libcgroups. Then again who really uses cgroups that often? We did have a topic on it separately:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...rs-4175526064/

And @T3Slider Actually the best technical argument I could make was the one I made. The problem of the lack of focus on GNU/Linux is one of it's biggest problems. That problem extends not just to Slackware, but to all Linux distributions. No init system, login manager, system log, or API interface is going to fix a problem that is continuously ignored. You could redraft GNU/Linux from the ground up a hundred times over, replace systemd with e, f, g, or any remaining letters of the alphabet, replace GCC with LLVM, replace X with Wayland, and unify the entire system into a monolithic project that takes 19 hours to compile, and all that effort will be for nothing if a market is not there, or ever will be.

The answer ultimately is this in relation to GNU/Linux, why should I try to drive a car when mechanics keep coming along replacing parts forcing me to stay parked going nowhere? It doesn't matter if that vehicle is Slackware, Fedora, Gentoo, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc. How can you get across town if you can't get the car you have to drive there out of the driveway, much less, out of the garage?

1 members found this post helpful.

Does this mean that you have some experience to share or you simply can't stop yourself from flooding this forum with nonsense.

Cheers

You're welcome for the link...

1 members found this post helpful.

Well of course no one did. A calm, coherent discussion of the technical aspects of systemd and how it compares with shell-driven inits would be completely out of place in this thread, which is little more than a flaimbait gone nuc'ular. Of course cgroups is an interesting trade-off, whereas one gets effective tracking at the cost of portablity. And sure, the binary logs are largely a non-issue, since "the system administrator may choose whether to log system events with systemd-journald, syslog-ng or rsyslog" [wikipedia], and even beyond that, systemd can always be patched if enough people desired it. But this is boring. What this thread is about is getting people to boycott systemd (see first post), and "UNIX philosophy" (see the nick of the OP), whatever that is, even though both Linux and GNU were designed in many ways to go beyond UNIX. Stallman in particular complained about how crappy UNIX was, and how he was stuck with building up on it, because everything else was absolute garbage.

Will we let it die already?

1 members found this post helpful.