SystemFree, the SystemD init replacement, what does it look like? What needs does it take into consideration?
Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
it speaks to the intent, and validity of the comments by the OP, and their intent in general - even if that isn't important to yourself.
Code:
[root@jamespc] ~> systemctL
bash: systemctL: command not found...
Similar command is: 'systemctl'
Wonder what happened there ?
(rhetorical question)
You're making an awful lot out of capitalisation and intent, for someone who uses the capitalisation of a binary filename to establish how the trade name is capitalised. They don't always match.
So many people got Linux/Linus wrong that he had to go on record as saying that it's always Lihn-UCKS, though depending on where he is, his name is pronounced Leenoos (natively) or Ly-nuhs.
Rhetorical question? No, extremely minor quibble posing as more. Just to attack the OP? Please.
It seems so. I'm not trying to step on anyones toes, but this topic is actually very important to me. It seems to rub the wrong way on some, I don't know why. I'm not perfect or "the best", I'm just trying to raise this topic the best way I can and talk about it in the way that I find productive.
I think it's very interesting to talk about a systemd replacement.
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018
You're making an awful lot out of capitalisation and intent, for someone who uses the capitalisation of a binary filename to establish how the trade name is capitalised. They don't always match.
So many people got Linux/Linus wrong that he had to go on record as saying that it's always Lihn-UCKS, though depending on where he is, his name is pronounced Leenoos (natively) or Ly-nuhs.
Same page: "To ask for help about bash, bash programming or bash shell scripting"
Same page: "To translate Bash's messages into other languages,"
Code:
$ which Bash
$ which bash
Rhetorical question? No, extremely minor quibble posing as more. Just to attack the OP? Please.
I'd suggest you read what systemd's own developers say, as pointed out by not only myself but others as well (others that are actually developers);
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
Spelling
Yes, it is written systemd, not system D or System D, or even SystemD. And it isn't system d either. Why? Because it's a system daemon, and under Unix/Linux those are in lower case, and get suffixed with a lower case d. And since systemd manages the system, it's called systemd. It's that simple. But then again, if all that appears too simple to you, call it (but never spell it!) System Five Hundred since D is the roman numeral for 500 (this also clarifies the relation to System V, right?). The only situation where we find it OK to use an uppercase letter in the name (but don't like it either) is if you start a sentence with systemd. On high holidays you may also spell it sÿstëmd. But then again, Système D is not an acceptable spelling and something completely different (though kinda fitting).
I didn't write what's quoted above - look at the link if you don't believe me. Is that my domain? No, it isn't.
A few points, and I'll try to keep them as brief as possible, since I did explicitly say before that given the OP doesn't like people responding that aren't agreeing with them, and wants to call such people "trolls", then it's pointless to even try and have a meaningful discussion with them;
bash or "Bash" (whatever you prefer), the same as the KornShell, C shell, etc, etc doesn't care what init system you're using, anymore than the Linux kernel does. It's even possible to have a "bare-bones" distro that doesn't even use any init system (but you still need an OS shell of some description) - but yes, not very practical in many use cases to not have any init system. So no good for things like servers, but not limited to.
*
This thread is about yet another "alternative" to systemd - not about replacing bash, ksh (KornShell), etc. All of my comments to this thread have been concerning the thread topic. The OP even reported both myself and another member for asking valid questions concerning the thread topic, reports that were unsurprising rejected by the mod's for this sub-forum. That speaks volumes in itself.
*
The OP still hasn't answered my question quoted below that I've asked twice now. Anyone who was serious about writing an "alternative" to systemd would have at least given a proper answer (if not, even just "an answer") to. And therefore would be able to explain clearly exactly how they wish to design their "alternative", how they intend on doing that, and would have already setup a repo to coordinate such development from. Rather then asking others to not only the design of THEIR "alternative", but also contribute code to THEIR project. Given that, and once again, I'm yet to see any evidence that the OP is in anyway serious about providing an "alternative", or has the skills to even write the beginnings of even just a basic init system - and I'm far from the only member that responded saying that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001
Yes, exactly. Perhaps putting it another way: why am I going to download a "new init system", that maybe as buggy as hell, when I can just use an existing "alternative", that HAS been tested and proven to work (and addresses the complaints about systemd)?
Chances are; most people are just going to use an existing "alternative" instead, rather than enter the unknown.
But try telling that to the OP...
...
(not that there's really much point in the OP giving even just any answer to that question now, since we are at post #122, and therefore there's been at least 20 posts since, with still no answer)
*
As pointed out by another member (who is clearly no fan of systemd themselves, and quite the opposite), from what the OP HAS said; their "vision" (if you could call it that) sounds very much like systemd, just with a different name. So what is the point in providing an "alternative" (if the OP or yourself for that matter even has the ability to) that looks and sounds very much like systemd? When that "alternative" is the same as systemd, just with a different name. Why not just use systemd itself in that case?
*
You're hardly in any position to be calling the kettle black yourself. You also have a similar thread in this very same sub-forum, where you also accuse another member (who was the only person here to even reply to your thread) of "trolling" because they questioned your OP. Personally, it's a credit to them that they even read 30% of that same OP - I barely even read that much of it before saying "the hell with this thread, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response". So please, spare me.
*
And how or where was I responding to any of your comments? Or do you just like accusing people of "attacking people" and/or being "trolls"? Grow up, or just ignore comments that aren't even directed at yourself. Because that could also be seen as "trolling".
Moreover, I don't care what you think full stop. Don't like my comments? Then ignore them - you can ignore me altogether if you like, no skin off my nose. In fact, while I maintain a high bar for my Ignore List and don't put people on it easily; I must admit, you're getting very, very close to being the latest addition to it. And no, it's not my problem what you think about that either, so spare me.
[*]The OP still hasn't answered my question quoted below that I've asked twice now. Anyone who was serious about writing an "alternative" to systemd would have at least given a proper answer (if not, even just "an answer") to. And therefore would be able to explain clearly exactly how they wish to design their "alternative", how they intend on doing that, and would have already setup a repo to coordinate such development from. Rather then asking others to not only the design of THEIR "alternative", but also contribute code to THEIR project. Given that, and once again, I'm yet to see any evidence that the OP is in anyway serious about providing an "alternative", or has the skills to even write the beginnings of even just a basic init system - and I'm far from the only member that responded saying that either.
(not that there's really much point in the OP giving even just any answer to that question now, since we are at post #122, and therefore there's been at least 20 posts since, with still no answer)
I have answered that question actually. You're just not paying attention, so get yourself under control please.
while I maintain a high bar for my Ignore List and don't put people on it easily; I must admit, you're getting very, very close to being the latest addition to it
My advice to anybody who is thinking of putting someone (including me) on ignore is not to waste time talking about it-- it's not an irreversible or complicated procedure, just go ahead already.
But before you go, I will point out that IF the OP reported you for nothing (that other dude WAS trolling, his sole contribution to the thread had no point but to flame) then I understand why you're picking on him about minutiae. I'm sure it's not the most mature response, but I don't blame you for that. (Other than that though, you're still picking on him about minutiae.) Happy trails!
You are probably too quick to report things and it's a waste of time throwing around authority you don't have here. The mods won't lend it to you.
With that said, we are in agreement that this is an important matter. I've outlined what I think are the problems with your solution-- they're potential problems, perhaps your way is the best way. I simply outlined why I think it's likely better to look for real alternatives as opposed to clone solutions. I hope we can talk about this further in the future, whether it's in this thread or elsewhere. Just don't waste too much energy policing the thread, nobody is likely to volunteer to comply.
What do all the other or many of the other init systems share as their goals, what seems to be important, what are they. Seemingly some are modules to an init and some are just inits, while other try to be everything. init, pid1, process supervision and service manager.
Most are written in C
Most have the goals to be minimalistic
Most have the goal of asynchronous startup
Most want to manage services
Many want to be sysv-init-style
Many are "permissible licence"
Some want to be portable/posix
Some want to be modular
Some want to be "all-in-one" (launchd style)
Some have no dependencies
Some are "GPL licenced"
Those with the starsign behind are ones interesting to systemfree in some way or another, to various degree. Some with no star might not have been looked into.
It's not a starsign, it's an asterisk. And I think you can forget about busybox. As far as I can remember, that's just a portfolio program that does the work of coreutils plus a shell. I would be surprised if it starts any daemons. It's designed for embedded systems, which usually don't need full initialisation, just a user interface.
And I think you can forget about busybox. As far as I can remember, that's just a portfolio program that does the work of coreutils plus a shell. I would be surprised if it starts any daemons.
Busybox is relevant to this discussion based on some existing distros already, along with Steve Litt's (one of the url the OP just posted) discussion of running without an init system entirely.
So I'll quibble and say don't forget about busybox, technically speaking, not that it's terribly practical-- the option is relevant IMO.
Busybox is relevant to this discussion based on some existing distros already, along with Steve Litt's (one of the url the OP just posted) discussion of running without an init system entirely.
So I'll quibble and say don't forget about busybox, technically speaking, not that it's terribly practical-- the option is relevant IMO.
Busybox is used across GNU/Linux in various ways as a type of init for various purposes, so I also think it is relevant. Just not as relevant as others, but at least worth mentioning.
I think even there is an attempt by someone to make something similar to "replace" busybox with a binary bootable "coreutils". Don't remember the exact name, but I think it was "something-coreutils" or "coreutils-something".
I have answered that question actually. You're just not paying attention, so get yourself under control please.
You are adding noise to the thread by your continued non-authoritative actions. I continue to monitor this thread and if you do not cease this type of actions then I will close the thread.
Keep your replies on topic.
If you have any questions then feel free to contact me.
Here's an interesting development in sysvinit LFS. They have now added Gnome and are using elogind to avoid systemd-dependency. However a new problem has arisen with non-US keyboards when logging in with gdm. Bluntly, gdm does not recognise them (although the Gnome desktop does once it's up) so passwords are not being read correctly.
What they have decided to do is to fork localed and add it to the mix. The job of launching it goes to dbus.
If this kind of thing goes on, we could end up with a modular toolkit that will do the work of systemd alongside whatever kind of init you want.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
