Re: #57: growing the 2%Linux 'PC home users' VS. the >>50% of 'servers' using Linux
(not to mention the 50% of smartphone/tablet users with Android hidden-OS)

'we' don't need any more complexity (wifi&video drivers are enough complication already)
YET, systemd is ?under? FreeDesktop.org! (vs. CloudWare)! How ironic/BACKWARDS! ?

Does 'DesktopUnix' ?need? to split off from systemd, like Android?

Probably not. systemd is not 'noticeably breaking' homePC things.
Certainly negligible, compared to PC (new) hardware driver issues.

I bet half of the code in the kernel is unnecessary for home desktop user.

systemd gets unreasonably implicated in 'bad-ness' for collecting errors.

I think it's disliked because it's something new, just like would:
CLI changing to perl instead of bash, for those who know bash & not perl
I'll just have fun learning whatever the new toy throws at me

1 members found this post helpful.

There are several critical problems with systemd.

1) Exact specification please. Anyone? Oh. There isn't one.
2) The whole developer mentality towards actual bugs.
3) PID1 which does waaaay to much. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
4) Systemd seems to be taking over userland too, which I do not like. When gnome pulls in systemd, when I do not want systemd, gnome stops being an option for me.

It's not about new (I actually find new quite nice). It's about the fact that the systemd people want everybody to depend on it. It's about systemd forcing themselves on the rest of the community, with complete disregard for everybody else. THAT is the whole problem with systemd.

8 members found this post helpful.

GREAT post #62! PID1 seems 'one step' away from THEkernel &is THE 'final reaper'

I just discovered whoLP 'created' the /run fs!

/run was added to FSH 3.0, it's not a filesystem. Not that controversial really, but upset a few people and broke a few things early on.

Having read LP's account, I think that he is right for once. It is tidier.

1 members found this post helpful.

People hate systemd because they think it's bad. But I remember people who wouldn't upgrade from DOS to Windows.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yep, I was one who wouldn't upgrade from DOS to Windows for years. Partly because some of the DOS programs I ran were noticeably slower and less stable under Windows 3.11, partly because I didn't get Windows' filesystem layout. Then I started learning more about security and maintaining the family's Win95 system, and appreciated DOS all the more.

Eventually I decided I'd have to get a more supported OS, so I put the money aside for a Windows licence... and had a play with an old Red Hat CD. The rest you can guess.

2 members found this post helpful.

DOS was a pretty awesome single user system, actually. It was a box of toys for those who like to have unlimited access to hardware and software.

If some of you are entertaining the idea that Windows was an upgrade at any point before 98SE, you most likely weren't there and have very little idea what you are talking about.

Same goes if anyone thinks GNU/Linux has ever had anything remotely in common with DOS, with the exception of being able to boot to the command line interface.

FYI, the init system has very little to do with how your desktop environment looks. Those pretty colors at boot? Guess what? that's just little old GRUB.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yes, but Windows was bad.

I for one migrated from MS-DOS to OS/2, and then to Linux in 1996, circumventing the whole mess.

OS/2 proved to be a good move at the time, as it ran my legacy DOS applications in a fully memory-protected multitasked environment, while also providing a wealth of native 32-bit applications, in 1992.

For thirty years, I have been shunning Windows and waiting for it to go away. This has proven to be a winning tactic, and I have every intention of applying it to systemd as well.

Kudos to Slackware, Gentoo, and the seventy+ other systemd-free Linux distributions which make that possible.

Setting aside the real problems it has introduced, systemd is bad because:

• It seeks to replace huge swaths of well-working low-level system software with new (and thus buggy) software,
• Its developers don't seem to know what they are doing,
• Its developers arrogantly reject bug reports,
• Its developers arrogantly reject constructive criticism,
• Its developers arrogantly insist that everyone uses it, and have weaponized software dependencies to make that happen (the udev dependency was a coup in this regard),
• The reasons given for poor design decisions (such as binary logs) make no sense and/or are demonstrably false.

It has no place on my systems.

2 members found this post helpful.

I'm another who stuck with DOS for as long as possible*. I found DOS + Desqview more reliable than win3.1 for the software I needed to run. Early windows were appalling; later some versions improved to the stage where they were merely bad (IMO, YMMV). In retrospect, I was right to do so.

*Until I was given a work computer with Win95 (then then 98, then NT, then XP, then Mac - all of which convinced me to move to Linux).

Seriously, can anyone provide systemd status?

Is it doing what it was created to do effectively?

Is it meeting the expectations of the people it was created for?

Objective and unbiased opinion please, thanks.

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Design --
"Is it doing what it was created to do effectively?"

It certainly provides a declarative way of expressing dependencies.

It is processing startup activities concurrently during boot-up.

It can potentially reduce the computational overhead of startup by replacing shell scripts, but thusfar all non-embedded distributions I know of have taken advantage of its SysV init script compatibility and continued using shell scripts.

(I'm sure someone will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong, there.)

It has seen moderate, mixed success in "unifying differences" between distributions. About three-quarters of all Linux distributions are using it today. They still seem to maintain their diversity, though, and service software buy-in is thusfar minimal (for instance, MySQL will support socket activation if systemd is present, but will work as usual if not).

"Is it meeting the expectations of the people it was created for?"

Gnome DE developers seem pleased with its login/seat management features. I'm not sure who else it was created for.

2 members found this post helpful.

I like that approach, unfortunately extra work, not sure other developers would care to do.

thanks ttk

Yes, for my experience, in terms of stability, solidity and sanity, when talking about free OSes, nothing beats BSD kernel and Minix kernel.
The smartest implemented flavor of the BSD kernel,is by far DragonFly BSD (particularly for heavy production environments. Take a search on google), that was branched long ago from FreeBSD, and keeps on the latter original philosophy.
Apple's MacOsX is itself a customization built on a BSD kernel.
Prof.Tanenbhaum's Minix, originally born for didactic purposes, and now financed and in partnership with NetBSD,is also so stable. But you (still) should be at least a good nerd to master it.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those supporting or defending systemd and posting from Windows...

Here is a tidy summary and thread from Debian forum that has valid reasons against systemd...
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=120652

2 members found this post helpful.