Why fix what ain't broke? It works and works well. Reinventing the wheel and starting with a block of rock first to see if it will roll is dumb.

Then why are distros drinking the systemd Kool-Aid?

Right now I'm busy building packages for Slackware 14.1, while listening to an old Wayne Shorter record (Blue Note). I know I'm a minority, and I know the vast majority of folks listen to Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. But hey.

4 members found this post helpful.

Have you even read the Debian systemd debate? Do you honestly believe that major distributions are switching to systemd for literally no reason? Why do you make it seem like systemd offers no benefits (e.g. why fix what ain't broke? / reinventing the wheel)?
You can see it here. There is very clearly a section titled "Why Debian should default to systemd". I suggest you start there.

Slightly OT: Also keep in mind that a faster boot is not a goal. It is simply a side affect of other improvements. It's as if someone were to make a car that's more fuel efficient, scores better at safety tests, and rides smoother, and just happens to be faster...and people only say "But my car is already fast enough! Why do I need a faster car when mine is sufficiently quick?"

1 members found this post helpful.

If systemd was a car, you'd probably be impressed by the sheer acceleration, indeed. On the other hand, attaching a caravan would be mandatory, parts of the lid would be welded, and you couldn't go to Canada anymore since the roads are incompatible with the car's concept. And all the cars in Europe would suddenly come to a halt for no reason.

3 members found this post helpful.

I'm actually kind of ambivalent on systemd as it stands, don't like some aspects do like others. But then I read things like this:

"Systemd is moving strongly in the direction of configuration-less system (i.e. “empty /etc/”). So /etc/fstab might be empty on a system with a GPT partition table, with partitions mounted in appropriate places based on their type id. This means that the configuration of the common one-machine-one-disk setup becomes even simpler."


This doesn't sound good to me? I like being able to configure a system...I think systemd has done itself a disservice by some of these assumptions

My analogy isn't fit for the entire systemd discussion, but rather just the point that many nay-sayers like to bring up time and time again: the boot speed argument. And it's stupid.

And even then, the systemd dependency situation is not at all how you make it out to be. Nor is the weldedness of any lids or whatever else you're trying to be cheeky about.

Don't take my defense of systemd the wrong way. I don't really care about what happens in Slackware because I will learn to live with whatever it is (and I have faith in the team's processes). But the FUD/ignorance in these parts is pretty embarrassing; I expect more from a group of Slackware users.

2 members found this post helpful.

At first, it is systemd, not systemD, not SystemD. You may not like it, but at least spell it correctly.

Reading this and the other thread, I seriously think that we may need a "Your hatred on systemd here"-Megathread in the Slackware forum.
What is up with all this?
And why does it look like that the people most opposing systemd seem to be those that are the most uninformed about it?
Is it too hard to read the systemd documentation and come up with the answers to questions like "Sure makes a person wonder why someone would reinvent the wheel then."? The reasons why systemd was/is developed are clearly pointed out.

I just can say the same as previous posters have already and quote PV:But I will add to it: If you feel the need to open such a thread nonetheless do your homework before opening the thread, learn about systemd (and try it unbiased) first, have a look at other init systems, decide for yourself and not based on the opinions of others if you like one of them. Then come back and if you still feel the need to discuss systemd do it based on your knowledge about it, without FUD. Also, discuss the software and not the developer.

Just like fatalfrrog says:

6 members found this post helpful.

http://i.imgur.com/IzmO8Dq.png

3 members found this post helpful.

Spell it correctly? Do you mean capitalize it correctly?

Mostly uninformed?

Look I am going off what I have read up about systemd as well as the general consensus
of how everybody feels about it. I also have read up about what it does, and what the person
who created it intends to do with it which is push it to every single distro.

Now I am not sure if you have been reading ReaperX7's responses, but it sure seems as though something
unnecessary has been created to fill a need which does not exist.

Many others believe this exact same thing (in the forum as well as in other forums in general).

What I am amazed about is that a Moderator out of everyone on the forum could be showing aggression such as this.

I believe I have every right to talk about systemd if I want to. I have not seen anything written anywhere in this
forum banning certain topics of threads (unless you could point me toward them or create them for me.).

I also have said nothing about the developer.

If I would have known that this thread would have caused such an uproar I would have never have created it.


Better yet... why dont you just close it instead of letting it continue? You are a moderator for a reason right?

Requesting a close for this thread.

Marked it as solved.

Waiting for close.

Yes, because someone who is informed would not say things like:

I pointed you towards the Debian debate above and you've ignored that. It explains exactly why the quote above is nonsense.

I say we close this troll hole.

Thanks for your contribution.

People, please relax. This is like a bad episode of Trek TOS. The whole crew is going mad from mods on the bridge right down to us red shirts. It's not your fault, it's just a subspace anomaly. Let's all go orbit some other planet until we feel better.

On the upside, 14.1 must be in damn good shape if there's only this shit to worry about.

6 members found this post helpful.

Except that Poettering created the argument! It's the whole reason this ever came up; Upstart started as an attempt to evolve the boot concept, and Poettering eventually came out saying they weren't doing it right. When he couldn't push his ideas into Upstart, he started his own project to shave off fractions of seconds from the boot sequence He may have been right in his tests, but the benefit value was very dubious, especially since he pissed off some developers then. Then we had hoards of people coming here for a very long time saying, when's systemd coming to slackware? Now do you understand how the 'stupid' argument got started, and why we are so board of it? The analogy is very correct from kiki.

So after Poettering created his concept at booting, he took it to an extreme. All these little processes that were independent could be managed by what was 'init'. So to achieve a few more seconds of perceived efficiency, he took independent utilities/libraries/messaging he did not write and linked it to his init system. You can argue away what dependency means, but the utility absortion puts it in his control, and he pissed off more people by making it more black-box and less independent. Poettering even will often say it, you can use any of the utilities in systemd, but it's going to be very hard to make it all work properly without X using Y. So dependency here means we all will eventually need more and more of his systemd box, if he is the only provider remaining of X. Supposedly the systemd concept puts more power in the admin's hands, but again the benefit value is dubious since he is just recasting the same concepts against 'fast-init' is the building block to service control paradigm. Again the analogy is correct.

Why do we have to stereotype what 'slackware users' are? It perpetuates stereotypical myths that aren't true. I don't see this as an issue stemming from FUD/ignorance either. systemd has been discussed plenty and there are reasons to resist it -- you can see plainly there has to be a reason by the slackware maintainers not already being on board. These are smart people in slackware no? There also other people here that aren't ignorant. Just because Daedalos can't express his opinion well enough doesn't mean he is ignorant and relying on FUD.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yes, that is what I meant, sorry for using the wrong word.

There is no general consensus on systemd and people feel different about it. There are strong opponents as well as strong proponents of systemd. But anyways, that is exactly what I meant withAs fatalfrrog pointed out, your sentence as well as this sentence from youindicates that your knowledge about systemd and other init systems is rather limited. That is why I said Regarding this:I never said that threads about systemd are not allowed, but, as you may have discovered, this topic was discussed very widely in different threads already and there simply isn't a need for another one. Even the Slackware BDFL asks people not to start one more of these threads, so maybe we should go with his advice. Also, if you feel that my post is overly aggressive just report it, so that other moderators will look at it.

I am not a moderator for the Slackware sub-forum, so I can't close this thread. But even if I could I wouldn't close it, threads on LQ are only closed if there are serious violations of the LQ Rules, which is not the case here.

1 members found this post helpful.