LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-04-2013, 02:43 PM   #16
angryfirelord
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Posts: 495

Rep: Reputation: 57

I think it's too early to tell since it hasn't really propagated to the "server" distributions yet. The real test for systemd will probably come with RHEL 7 and/or the next Debian release (if it gets integrated).

The big problem I see is that systemd is trying to be the black monolith of init systems. Gnome has (or had) a dependency on it, so even if Slackware stays away from it, there's a risk that some other upstream projects might not build without it. systemd also has some weird dependencies of its own, such as including a web server: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux....a.devel/169082
Quote:
You know something is crap when the Ubuntu people are opposing it, and the Slackware people are rooting for the Ubuntu people against it.
No, that's because Ubuntu has their own init system called upstart, which seems incapable of shutting down my computer half the time.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-04-2013, 04:11 PM   #17
teho
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by angryfirelord View Post
I think it's too early to tell since it hasn't really propagated to the "server" distributions yet.
Both RHEL (7) and SUSE Linux Enterprise (12) plan to adopt it so at least there's two competing companies who think it's worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by angryfirelord View Post
Gnome has (or had) a dependency on it, so even if Slackware stays away from it, there's a risk that some other upstream projects might not build without it.
It looks likely that both Gnome and KDE will use systemd --user for starting and managing the user session in the future. Gnome's Mutter, KDE's KWin and Wayland's Weston compositors will require systemd-logind for handling the device access among other things with Wayland. Gnome currently uses some systemd APIs (systemd-{hostnamed,timedated,localed...}) to configure the system, these can be implemented without systemd though. Gnome aims to keep the dependency on essential features optional so the starting Gnome session without systemd will likely be supported for long time, same goes for KDE.


Quote:
Originally Posted by angryfirelord View Post
systemd also has some weird dependencies of its own, such as including a web server...
systemd doesn't depend on a web server. It's a optional and separate daemon for the systemd-journald logger that can be disabled on both compile and runtime.
 
Old 11-04-2013, 06:59 PM   #18
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 799

Rep: Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by teho View Post
Both RHEL (7) and SUSE Linux Enterprise (12) plan to adopt it
It's fine. I don't have to adopt them. They use RPM, that alone is reason enough to stay away.

Quote:
It looks likely that both Gnome and KDE will use systemd
Fine, they can build whatever 0pointer-based desktop operating system they want. Nobody has to and almost nobody will use it, just as before.

The whole discussion is completely irrelevant to Slackware and off-topic here and there's nothing changed since the last one.

Why I'm even answering someone with a fake account and a single post?

Last edited by jtsn; 11-04-2013 at 07:01 PM.
 
Old 11-04-2013, 07:26 PM   #19
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 15,357
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980Reputation: 3980
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartgymnast View Post
I am running systemd v208 for 4 weeks now, and before that 207 and 206.
Didn't had a single crash.

I am running this on slackware.
What I am seeing so far is that even tho it is immature, it does have lots of potential.
Do you have documentation about the process of installing systemd on Slackware? I am generally interested in init systems and would like to give that a try.

On the original topic: I don't like some things in systemd either, but that is no reason to start an inflammatory thread, especially with the obvious FUD that comes up all the time in similar threads. I don't know what you mean with obscure, but systemd is not badly documented and since at least two enterprise distros will use it in their next release I highly doubt that it is as unstable as you claim.

Last edited by TobiSGD; 11-04-2013 at 07:31 PM.
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:36 PM   #20
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, Slackware-14.1, PCBSD-10.0
Posts: 2,789
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729
Well, Lennart isn't getting any love here due to how fickle he is with projects and how he feels he has to stick his nose in everything, stir the pot, then walk away.

His track record more than speaks volumes about how many people feel about him.

If and when Slackware will ever get systemd is a mystery known only but to Patrick, and I'm fairly certain hes been testing it and keeping a close eye on it's progress, but hasn't committed to it for one reason or another, probably due to his target audience being minimalists and power users as well as system administrators who like the Keep it Stupidly Simple approach to Slackware and it's BSD scripting.

LFS won't be getting it either. They tried to import it with 7.3, but it really made a mess. A book to built it exists but you have to build and rebuild so much against it it's ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teho View Post
Wayland's Weston compositors will require systemd-logind for handling the device access among other things with Wayland.
SOURCE?! X.Org has said nothing about Wayland and Weston both requiring systemd. FUD! It's only required AFAIK if you launch Weston as a user without a dedicated weston-group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM4Mzc
For now this systemd support is only available if the libsystemd-daemon is available without Wayland/Weston having a hard dependency on systemd at this time.
Systemd still has a few issues with parallel loading with some services still not being handled properly. OpenRC and RunIt both had similar issues with parallel loading and made it entirely optional. This is why the linear service loading design is still highly favored by system administrators of mission critical servers and devices. Less, headaches, and less worry.

GNOME already poisoned themselves, hence why DropLine and MATE exist. If KDE wants to poison themselves also, then let them. Most stuff still only requires the DBus anyway, so why systemd would be absolutely required is just asinine. We can all get along with alternative DEs like Xfce, MATE, Trinity, LXDE, and others.

Only a small fraction of systemd is not well documented, the rest has fairly decent documentation but logind and ConsoleKit, which have the worst documentation to date.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 11-04-2013 at 08:51 PM.
 
Old 11-04-2013, 09:02 PM   #21
MadMaverick9
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Here
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 119

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didier Spaier View Post
Let me quote Slackware Maintainer on that topic:
Let's not have another one of those threads, OK? Save it for when we switch to systemd.
And this comment is exactly the reason why we should and need to have a discussion about it now.
Quote:
‘When’ should be used while referring to something that one is certain will happen.
From Pat's comment, I conclude that Pat has already made up his mind. And once we have reached the point where Pat is making the switch, it will be too late to have a discussion.

Quote:
systemd System and Service Manager
The first thing that annoys me is that systemd is using MS Windows terms, i.e. "services". On *nix we have daemons, not services.

I am not in a position to make more informed comments, cause I have not used it or read about it.

Last edited by MadMaverick9; 11-04-2013 at 09:45 PM.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-04-2013, 09:49 PM   #22
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 799

Rep: Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaverick9 View Post
The first thing that annoys me is that systemd is using MS Windows terms, i.e. "services". On *nix we have daemons, not services.
What leads you to the conclusion, that a Red Hat style OS has anything to do with Unix?

It's the new "Linux standard base". If you want Unix, you can move to OS X. Solaris may qualify as Unix, too. Or the BSDs. That's why they are "a thing of the past", ya know?

Last edited by jtsn; 11-04-2013 at 09:51 PM.
 
Old 11-04-2013, 10:00 PM   #23
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,635

Rep: Reputation: 567Reputation: 567Reputation: 567Reputation: 567Reputation: 567Reputation: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
What leads you to the conclusion, that a Red Hat style OS has anything to do with Unix?

It's the new "Linux standard base". If you want Unix, you can move to OS X. Solaris may qualify as Unix, too. Or the BSDs. That's why they are "a thing of the past", ya know?
Well, "Red Hat style" covers a lot of ground, but Linux does in fact have a rich and valuable Unix heritage - it did not develop out of a vacuum! It is "Unix-like" by definition and by design, and for many the core value proposition of Linux is its Unix foundations.

We ignore or discard that Unix heritage at great loss.

Last edited by astrogeek; 11-04-2013 at 10:10 PM. Reason: typos
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-04-2013, 10:16 PM   #24
MadMaverick9
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Here
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 119

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
Solaris may qualify as Unix, too. Or the BSDs. That's why they are "a thing of the past", ya know?
gee - Thanks very much for making me feel old.

But - here's something that I've been wanting to say for quite some time now:

When reading a developer's project page, I usually understand "the itch they're trying to scratch". But with Wayland and systemd I am completely at a loss what it is they're trying to achieve.

For example from Wayland's wikipedia page:
Quote:
His stated goal was a system in which "every frame is perfect, by which I mean that applications will be able to control the rendering enough that we'll never see tearing, lag, redrawing or flicker."
On my system with X Windows, my windows are not being torn apart, are not lagging behind, etc. "that we'll never see redrawing" - I think it's in the nature of application windows that they're being redrawn, because their contents change. To be honest - I am not even sure what they mean with these terms in the context of a display manager. So - yes - maybe I am getting too old for this.

On the other hand - there are glaring bugs in programs that we use daily, which are not being addressed.

https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla...g.cgi?id=67787
 
Old 11-04-2013, 10:30 PM   #25
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 799

Rep: Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaverick9 View Post
On the other hand - there are glaring bugs in programs that we use daily, which are not being addressed.
Inventing exciting new stuff is always more popular than fixing bugs.

BTW: I'm not using LibreOffice, I stick with OpenOffice and an age-old StarOffice 5.2 (I run the Windows version of it, because the Linux version doesn't work anymore due to glibc breakage).
 
Old 11-04-2013, 10:43 PM   #26
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, Slackware-14.1, PCBSD-10.0
Posts: 2,789
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729Reputation: 729
BSD, Solaris, Illumos, and HP-UX are not really systems of the past. Just becasue they aren't as mainstream in the UNIX-world as Linux is, doesn't make them any less relevent.

Just becasue they don't support the same software and hardware as Linux does, doesn't make them any less important. When you get into servers and networking you see systems like FreeBSD taking over and where high capacity Datacenters are concerned you'll start seeing Solaris, HP-UX, and such.

Yes, using the Windows terminologies is a poor excuse of a way to describe Linux daemons, but systemd is effectively duplicating on main service found in Windows by trying to be the main all-purpose daemon. Systemd, is trying to effectively duplicate svchost.exe, which has ballooned the requirements of Windows since Vista to staggering levels by trying to take in more and more responsibility.

And since when do any distributions truly conform to the LSB compliancy? The Linux Standard Base, and all are a loosely knit collaborations in designs of what a Linux system should be, but isn't required to be. No Linux distribution has to conform to any set level of standards other than providing the basic GNU core system and tools and not violating the GNU licenses by including non-GNU compatible in license software in a primary build for distribution.

The Red Hat model is yet again one of many loosely knit specifications for a Linux distribution. There's also the Debian model, the Slackware model, the LFS model, and various other models of Linux standards.

As far as what Patrick has publicly stated, he has only stated that he is looking into systemd, but hasn't made a choice of wether or not he will include it, but will, through speculation only, ONLY include systemd when and if the code has become viable enough to be of general usage, stable enough to be a true long term solution, and wants to make sure systemd is put into Slackware correctly. The if, and when, we get it, are simply just that, if and when, and so far that if and when are just that, if and when.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-04-2013, 11:13 PM   #27
kikinovak
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Montpezat (South France)
Distribution: Slackware, Slackware64
Posts: 1,489

Rep: Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
As far as what Patrick has publicly stated, he has only stated that he is looking into systemd, but hasn't made a choice of wether or not he will include it, but will, through speculation only, ONLY include systemd when and if the code has become viable enough to be of general usage, stable enough to be a true long term solution, and wants to make sure systemd is put into Slackware correctly. The if, and when, we get it, are simply just that, if and when, and so far that if and when are just that, if and when.
Aside from the technical specs, choosing and using a distribution is based a lot on psychology. Trust is to be earned. There's a nice chapter by security expert Bruce Schneier about this, in one of his latest books. I've come to appreciate Slackware's soft-spoken no-bullshit approach, conveying a general sense of reliability. Without even going into the technical details, I know now I can trust the Slackware team for taking technical decisions that make sense, and build my stuff on that base.

Still aside from the technical specs, I'd think one of the main problems with Systemd is Lennart Poettering's loud affective cretinism and blatant immaturity. Whenever I read one of his blog posts or Google plus discussion threads, the only thing that happens is that my blood pressure goes up by a few notches.

From a merely human point of view, the Slackware-plus-Systemd combination feels like including a lame college standup comedian in a great Shakespeare drama. Which may explain the foul eggs and the rotten tomatoes in discussions about Systemd.

Last edited by kikinovak; 11-05-2013 at 12:02 AM.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-04-2013, 11:16 PM   #28
MadMaverick9
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Here
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 119

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
@ReaperX7
Quote:
he has only stated that he is looking into systemd
Sorry - but that is not what he wrote. He wrote:
Quote:
Save it for when we switch to systemd.
If he is looking into it, he would've written:
Quote:
Save it for if we switch to systemd.
http://www.englishleap.com/common-mistakes/when-if

Last edited by MadMaverick9; 11-04-2013 at 11:37 PM.
 
Old 11-04-2013, 11:24 PM   #29
coralfang
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Bristol, UK
Distribution: Slackware, FreeBSD
Posts: 224

Rep: Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ongbuntu View Post
not going to start another heated debate whatsoever.

I think we all know that systemd does not have much to offer except for slightly faster boot up time.

Everything else is much more complicated in terms of configuration. I do not mind if it's well documented/coded. but try to look at some of the source code. It's really bad... hardly readable. And the only 'documentation' you get is from the 0pointer website. Information are all over the place... it just doesn't make any sense. At least not to me.
I've found that claim to be meaningless. On a stock system, sure systemd is a little faster, but once you background various daemons at boot, and you use things like preload or ureadahead. There really is no difference to traditional init systems.

In fact, for me; When i last used Arch Linux on my desktop i had a pretty basic system with preload and some backgrounded things, the boot time (with xorg automatically launching) took 13 seconds from bios to X. After a fresh install with systemd on Arch, it took around 20 seconds to boot.

I would use slackware for comparison, but i've never wanted to manually install systemd onto anything at all

If systemd can only vouch for faster boot times, then it is literally useless. In my experience, it can't even do that.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 12:09 AM   #30
teho
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
SOURCE?! X.Org has said nothing about Wayland and Weston both requiring systemd. FUD! It's only required AFAIK if you launch Weston as a user without a dedicated weston-group.

Quote:
GNOME 3.10 has Wayland as technological preview. The Wayland support in Mutter is being tracked in a special branch and tarballs are released as mutter-wayland. The Wayland support in GNOME will rely on logind to function (to be clear: Wayland in GNOME, not Wayland in general). If you have read my entire blog, you’ll notice that though we knew about logind runing on Ubuntu, as of version 205, logind is now tied together to systemd.
Olav Vitters, Gnome release manager

Quote:
I do hope Debian decides for systemd. It's important for running KWin on top of Wayland and if Debian as a base would not provide this i would be forced to switch distros. Arch seems to be very popular among kde devs nowadays...
Martin Gräßlin, the maintainer of KDE's window manager, KWin

You can use Weston without systemd-logind but then you are going to have trouble with session switching and running it without root. David Herrmann made four insightful blog posts about the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Well, Lennart isn't getting any love here due to how fickle he is with projects and how he feels he has to stick his nose in everything, stir the pot, then walk away.
The actual developers, distribution maintainers and users at large scale seems to like "his" projects (it has had contributions from 145 people during the past year alone) and therefore they get adopted so quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
His track record more than speaks volumes about how many people feel about him.
The Lennart hate club seems to be going strong on LinuxQuestions.org but that doesn't really reflect reality. You could look for LWN.net or reddit.com/r/linux for different point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Systemd still has a few issues with parallel loading with some services still not being handled properly. OpenRC and RunIt both had similar issues with parallel loading and made it entirely optional. This is why the linear service loading design is still highly favored by system administrators of mission critical servers and devices. Less, headaches, and less worry.
It seems to work extremely well in demanding environments too. For example Pantheon runs more than 554 000 systemd units in over 150 000 containers. Sure, there's always something that needs a little work but when those quirks have been worked over we have better system than ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
GNOME already poisoned themselves, hence why DropLine and MATE exist. If KDE wants to poison themselves also, then let them. Most stuff still only requires the DBus anyway, so why systemd would be absolutely required is just asinine. We can all get along with alternative DEs like Xfce, MATE, Trinity, LXDE, and others.
KDE will most likely carry the backwards compatibility for a long, long time in to the future. It's just that you miss on new features like faster startup. The startkde script is horribly slow but it hasn't changed in years so maintanance probably won't be a problem. You can probably hack around the logind depenedency on Wayland systems or just use X11 in the future too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Only a small fraction of systemd is not well documented, the rest has fairly decent documentation but logind and ConsoleKit, which have the worst documentation to date.
I fail to see the problem with systemd-logind documentation. The commands. the configuration files, the APIs and the pam_module has been documented and new developers, like David Herrmann could easily pick up its developement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn
Fine, they can build whatever 0pointer-based desktop operating system they want. Nobody has to and almost nobody will use it, just as before.
It seems that more and more distributions are moving to systemd (Mageia, Arch Linux, Fedora, openSUSE, RHEL, SEL, Sabayon, Nux, Chakra, Frugware, Tanglu...) and even more are considering it, most importantly Debian so I don't see where this comes from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn
Why I'm even answering someone with a fake account and a single post?
What a welcomming community...

Quote:
Originally Posted by coralfang
If systemd can only vouch for faster boot times, then it is literally useless.
You should read up on systemd because it hasn't never done that. The attitude towards it booting fast is that it's a side effect of doing things right.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Systemd v Initscripts Sli Arch 2 11-05-2012 04:32 PM
Systemd Brandon9000 Linux - General 3 09-18-2012 02:45 PM
Systemd custangro Fedora 2 08-01-2011 07:54 AM
Boot Delay 30min: systemd-analyze blame systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service BGHolmes Fedora 0 07-27-2011 09:02 AM
Linspire = Crap, Netzero also = Crap rm6990 General 16 09-20-2004 02:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration