A complete cop-out over systemd, we're hurting from the bugs and the architecture, not the change of itself. Unfortunate, I'd hoped for more than a standard systemd marketing blurb cut and paste.
He answered the question. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make his answer a "cop out". What were you expecting? Red Hat created Systemd. It is their baby. They are not going to abandon it. If it is so important to you, then install Slackware, and you will not only be able to tweak your init system, but you can tweak anything else you want, and experience pure raw Linux.
It's a cop out because it's lies and misdirection. "The problems an init system needs to solve today are different from the ones that traditional init systems were solving in the 70's, 80's and even the 90's." No, it's doing the same goddamned job. "This also makes it easy to use cgroups to configure SLAs for CPU, memory, etc." No, since redhat used boilerplate for all initscripts, it would have been easy to insert the simple shell commands to create cgroups and put daemons into them into every initscript. "the sequential ordering of the init rc script mechanism" was already addressed in redhat, since their initscripts had dependencies listed. You could just use OpenRC in parallel mode, and they had included all the information needed to do that already. "meets our customer's expectations around capabilities, stability, maturity, and community momentum" is also pure horse shit. It does not add any new capabilities, it is horribly unstable, it is not even close to mature, and much of the community has rejected it outright.
People who tell lies are liars. Jim Whitehurst is a liar.
You have a reading comprehension problem combined with literally zero knowledge of systemd. I have investigated it thoroughly as well as put in the relatively minimal effort to understand and leverage it. Everything he said was spot on.
Since those things aren't true, you would think my comment would carry more weight, yet it carries the exact same weight. It seems we have found incontrovertible evidence that you have no idea how comments work. Off you go now little troll...
I don't see how your comment has more weight - to me it evidently has less weight due to it not containing anything relevant to what the poster you replied to wrote.
The fact that you need to call someone else a "troll" shows that you are still at kindergarten level.
Please try to leave the kindergarten and man up.
Why would I re-explain It? Whitehurst broke it down quite nicely, and even provided links you are clearly too lazy to follow. Every myth that you hear over and over again from the people who are claiming to be Linux experts, and anti-systemd, is exposed in that write-up. The truth, I suspect, is that these idiots either are anti-Linux. The other option is that they are woefully incompetent. People aren't leaving Linux for the BSDs, and if anyone would know Whitehurst would. And despite the claims that they
No, it really isn't. Since the 1990s, we've heavily moved to hotpluggable hardware thanks to USB, networking has gone from "Basic and optional" to "Ubiquitous and complex" thanks to high speed Internet, wireless mobile Internet (be it cellular or multiple WiFi hotspots), software firewalls, etc, and those are just two major differences off the top of my head that will impact an operating system's core start up and daemon management system.
And, let's be clear here, init was always shit too. I had numerous problems back in the 1990s with it if, say, a key service couldn't be started.
It's not a cop out. He's not lying, you're just yelling "Lah lah lah" because you don't want to accept the basic reality that systemd is there to solve a legitimate problem. And the bit that gets me is you don't have to live in an alternative universe where init is still viable to criticize systemd. It's legitimate to say "Yeah, but systemd has problems X, Y, and Z."
What's a cop out is you pretending that everything's fine with an init system, that virtually every serious professional Unix-like OS - from Solaris to macOS, and almost all GNU/Linuxes even before systemd came along - has thrown out, is fine, and that therefore systemd is unnecessary. Because that cop out, aside from being wrong, lets you off the hook in terms of building a case against systemd.
And the reason you need to be off that hook, is because actually it's relatively hard to build a legitimate, non-nitpicky, case against systemd. It's actually a pretty good system. There's been problems, I'm still annoyed at that security hole involving numeric usernames and its handling for example, but by and large it's a massive improvement on what we had before. Massive.
"No, it really isn't. Since the 1990s, we've heavily moved to hotpluggable hardware thanks to USB,"
Who the fuck has hotpluggable USB devices in their server room?
Here is the assumption that the only RHEL use is for the server room, and that if the rest of the world needs a more full-featured boot environment, that the server room should have some separate for. There are quite a few RHEL desktops for those who don't like the instability of Fedora/Ubuntu/etc and need the commercially-supported OS for the commercial end-user software that runs on top of it.
CEO is copping out and you are spewing in ignorance.
macos is a desktop system, and I'll agree systemd might be fine for a desktop system.
The other Unix have superior systems to systemd for init that actually address enterprise needs and also still prove traditional functionality/compatibility. Bringing them up is a fine way to start discussion of how systemd went off the rails as a failed attempt to make something better
Systemd does not solve any problem nor address any need for the hundreds of servers I a
Since the 1990s, we've heavily moved to hotpluggable hardware thanks to USB, networking has gone from "Basic and optional" to "Ubiquitous and complex" thanks to high speed Internet, wireless mobile Internet (be it cellular or multiple WiFi hotspots), software firewalls, etc
Number of USB devices I've plugged in during last 10 years that are not HID keyboard, HID mouse or mass storage: 0
Number of wifi networks in range at home: 13
Number of wifi networks in range at work: 2
Number of wifi networks to whic
The extinguish comes next because systemd introduces a nasty -- encrypted log files.
I... buh. Of all the charges against systemd, this is one of the weirdest. There's nothing stopping you from having journald also write logs to text files as well.
I'm not sure how much it's lies, but it left me feeling that there was it was adopted because of some agenda that wasn't being revealed.
Personally, I have seen *NO* advantage in systemd, and as a Debian user I felt the adoption of it was an unpleasant surprise and never justified.
There are several features of it that I do not like, particularly the lack of transparency. With shell scripts I could figure out what was happening, with systemd It's "depend on the developers".
and much of the community has rejected it outright.
Yeah considering all the major distros use it now, you are talking bullshit. Gentoo lets you choose to not use it, but the default is SystemD.
Slackware is the only holdout left for any distro that has ever been of any consequence. SystemD is the standard for Linux, it already won that fight.
How is it proprietary? Last time I checked it was licensed under the GPL All the distros wanted off init. Canonical did Upstart, which Red Hat even adopted for RHEL/CentOS 6 and designed SystemD to basically solve some of the issues with Upstart.
If SystemD never came about, everyone would have moved to Upstart.
X is not coming back either. Canonical tried their hand at Mir but Wayland is the future. The entire point of open source is the best technology wins out, and all the distos out there went with Sys
The clothes have no emperor.
-- C.A.R. Hoare, commenting on ADA.
Complete cop-out (Score:2)
A complete cop-out over systemd, we're hurting from the bugs and the architecture, not the change of itself. Unfortunate, I'd hoped for more than a standard systemd marketing blurb cut and paste.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
A complete cop-out over systemd
He answered the question. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make his answer a "cop out". What were you expecting? Red Hat created Systemd. It is their baby. They are not going to abandon it. If it is so important to you, then install Slackware, and you will not only be able to tweak your init system, but you can tweak anything else you want, and experience pure raw Linux.
Re:Complete cop-out (Score:1, Flamebait)
It's a cop out because it's lies and misdirection. "The problems an init system needs to solve today are different from the ones that traditional init systems were solving in the 70's, 80's and even the 90's." No, it's doing the same goddamned job. "This also makes it easy to use cgroups to configure SLAs for CPU, memory, etc." No, since redhat used boilerplate for all initscripts, it would have been easy to insert the simple shell commands to create cgroups and put daemons into them into every initscript. "the sequential ordering of the init rc script mechanism" was already addressed in redhat, since their initscripts had dependencies listed. You could just use OpenRC in parallel mode, and they had included all the information needed to do that already. "meets our customer's expectations around capabilities, stability, maturity, and community momentum" is also pure horse shit. It does not add any new capabilities, it is horribly unstable, it is not even close to mature, and much of the community has rejected it outright.
People who tell lies are liars. Jim Whitehurst is a liar.
Re: Complete cop-out (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Complete cop-out (Score:1)
Re:Complete cop-out (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it really isn't. Since the 1990s, we've heavily moved to hotpluggable hardware thanks to USB, networking has gone from "Basic and optional" to "Ubiquitous and complex" thanks to high speed Internet, wireless mobile Internet (be it cellular or multiple WiFi hotspots), software firewalls, etc, and those are just two major differences off the top of my head that will impact an operating system's core start up and daemon management system.
And, let's be clear here, init was always shit too. I had numerous problems back in the 1990s with it if, say, a key service couldn't be started.
It's not a cop out. He's not lying, you're just yelling "Lah lah lah" because you don't want to accept the basic reality that systemd is there to solve a legitimate problem. And the bit that gets me is you don't have to live in an alternative universe where init is still viable to criticize systemd. It's legitimate to say "Yeah, but systemd has problems X, Y, and Z."
What's a cop out is you pretending that everything's fine with an init system, that virtually every serious professional Unix-like OS - from Solaris to macOS, and almost all GNU/Linuxes even before systemd came along - has thrown out, is fine, and that therefore systemd is unnecessary. Because that cop out, aside from being wrong, lets you off the hook in terms of building a case against systemd.
And the reason you need to be off that hook, is because actually it's relatively hard to build a legitimate, non-nitpicky, case against systemd. It's actually a pretty good system. There's been problems, I'm still annoyed at that security hole involving numeric usernames and its handling for example, but by and large it's a massive improvement on what we had before. Massive.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, it really isn't. Since the 1990s, we've heavily moved to hotpluggable hardware thanks to USB,"
Who the fuck has hotpluggable USB devices in their server room?
Here is the assumption that the only RHEL use is for the server room, and that if the rest of the world needs a more full-featured boot environment, that the server room should have some separate for. There are quite a few RHEL desktops for those who don't like the instability of Fedora/Ubuntu/etc and need the commercially-supported OS for the commercial end-user software that runs on top of it.
Re: (Score:1)
CEO is copping out and you are spewing in ignorance.
macos is a desktop system, and I'll agree systemd might be fine for a desktop system.
The other Unix have superior systems to systemd for init that actually address enterprise needs and also still prove traditional functionality/compatibility. Bringing them up is a fine way to start discussion of how systemd went off the rails as a failed attempt to make something better
Systemd does not solve any problem nor address any need for the hundreds of servers I a
Re: (Score:1)
And, let's be clear here, init was always shit too. I had numerous problems back in the 1990s with it if, say, a key service couldn't be started.
It wasn't init that was shit, it was sysvinit (i.e. all the crap under /etc/init.d and /etc/rc?.d) that was shit.
Poor old init(1) didn't have a chance, buried under piles of crapulous /bin/sh scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
Number of USB devices I've plugged in during last 10 years that are not HID keyboard, HID mouse or mass storage: 0
Number of wifi networks in range at home: 13
Number of wifi networks in range at work: 2
Number of wifi networks to whic
Re: (Score:2)
The extinguish comes next because systemd introduces a nasty -- encrypted log files.
I... buh. Of all the charges against systemd, this is one of the weirdest. There's nothing stopping you from having journald also write logs to text files as well.
Re: (Score:1)
The idea that "binary, in a documented format" means "encrypted" is pretty weird. What exactly does the AC think text files are?
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do you think encrypted means? Whatever your answer, it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much it's lies, but it left me feeling that there was it was adopted because of some agenda that wasn't being revealed.
Personally, I have seen *NO* advantage in systemd, and as a Debian user I felt the adoption of it was an unpleasant surprise and never justified.
There are several features of it that I do not like, particularly the lack of transparency. With shell scripts I could figure out what was happening, with systemd It's "depend on the developers".
That said, I can see use cases wher
Re: (Score:2)
and much of the community has rejected it outright.
Yeah considering all the major distros use it now, you are talking bullshit. Gentoo lets you choose to not use it, but the default is SystemD.
Slackware is the only holdout left for any distro that has ever been of any consequence. SystemD is the standard for Linux, it already won that fight.
Re: (Score:2)
If SystemD never came about, everyone would have moved to Upstart.
X is not coming back either. Canonical tried their hand at Mir but Wayland is the future. The entire point of open source is the best technology wins out, and all the distos out there went with Sys