SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
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's from the same guy that brought us Pulse Audio, so call me skeptical of the need for it. I took a look at the docs for the Arch Linux package for it, and it seemed like a lot of effort to arrive right back where I started.
Let me summarise. systemd is exactly the sort of thing a one-club golfer would come up with if he had extraordinarily deep C skills, no systems administration experience, no historical perspective, and didn't consult anyone who might spoil the illusion.
What is needed out there is something that is
well evolved to fit its niche (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),
universally understood (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* be until 40 years have passed),
simple to the point of triviality and hammered millions of times a day, so it is utterly reliable (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),
stable and unchanging, and therefore needing minimal maintenance (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms have been for 40 years, whereas who's to say that systemd/upstart will still be recognisable ten years from now? Remember when hal was the new panacea, huh?)
highly hackable for weird and unpredicatable ad-hoc requirements under extreme time pressure at three in the morning using lowest common denominator knowledge and tools, while everyone around you is screaming at you and losing their sanity (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart are not).
I heard that, my computer boots, why do I need a new boot process?
Well, the problem with using shell scripts in the boot process is that it goes through a lot of PIDs, and it would be "less ugly" to arrive at a usable machine state with a PID in the hundreds, or lower. If everything has to break in order to achieve that, it seems like a good trade. Eventually all the broken stuff will be fixed, right?
I think that's the basic rationale. And maybe shave a few more seconds off boot time, but who boots much (or cares)? My servers and desktops remain on, and my laptops are usually on, suspended, or hibernated. I would prefer a reliable and well-understood boot system like the one we have.
My primary concern is that the systemd cabal is going to be pushing it as a dependency wherever possible, but we'll deal with that if it happens. But if any major distributions do actually release using systemd, the world will be stuck with it forever. If that's the case, I hope it turns out to be a good idea...
Let's just switch to any crazy idea Lennart can come up with.
Not every idea he has is crazy. The ideas behind a tmpfs /run directory for use in the initrd/early userspace seemed to make a lot of sense. Can't say I like much else of what he's come up with though.
....My primary concern is that the systemd cabal is going to be pushing it as a dependency wherever possible, but we'll deal with that if it happens. But if any major distributions do actually release using systemd, the world will be stuck with it forever. If that's the case, I hope it turns out to be a good idea...
I did read that "systemd has since been proposed as an external dependency of GNOME 3.2 by the project's author.This would essentially require all distributions that use GNOME to use systemd, or at least include it as a configurable option."
Of course, I do not use Gnome so not worried in that respect...
My computers work just fine with Slackware the way it is...tried and true...
Let me summarise. systemd is exactly the sort of thing a one-club golfer would come up with if he had extraordinarily deep C skills, no systems administration experience, no historical perspective, and didn't consult anyone who might spoil the illusion.
What is needed out there is something that is
well evolved to fit its niche (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),
universally understood (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* be until 40 years have passed),
simple to the point of triviality and hammered millions of times a day, so it is utterly reliable (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),
stable and unchanging, and therefore needing minimal maintenance (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms have been for 40 years, whereas who's to say that systemd/upstart will still be recognisable ten years from now? Remember when hal was the new panacea, huh?)
highly hackable for weird and unpredicatable ad-hoc requirements under extreme time pressure at three in the morning using lowest common denominator knowledge and tools, while everyone around you is screaming at you and losing their sanity (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart are not).
That's for starters. Anything else?
55020 is officially my hero.
After the best post i've ever read anywhere on the internet about dependency resolution, now this. Thank you!
@sahko thanks, but what Mr Volkerding and the real Slack experts write, when they find time to do so, is always more insightful, more informed, more balanced, and (usually) more polite. However, they make better use of their spare time (for example) playing golf, instead of being grumpy on the Net. And they're right to do that.
I would prefer a reliable and well-understood boot system like the one we have.
+1
Systemd doesn't seem to provide the advantages necessary to justify the change (at least yet). I don't get the obsession of some people with boot times and why some major distributions change vital system components so easily without good reason. What's even worse is that these components become "standard" and then other distributions are forced to use them too.
I don't say that nothing should ever be changed. Progress is good and changes are required from time to time, but not change things just to change them.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.