Yeah, yeah I know the history of its development and how log files are binary and the whole debug kernel flag fiasco. And I don't care. By the time I used systemd, that had already long passed.
I switched from Squeeze to Jessie a couple years ago, had some growing pains as I learned how to use systemd... but that was it. No stability issues, no bugs. Can't say whether things run better, but they definitely don't run worse.
I had only really been using Linux for a few years before the onset of systemd, and hon
People who complain about systemd the most seem to have been using Linux for a very long time and just "don't want to change".
no, that's not it. people who have been using linux for a long time usually *know the corner-cases better*. in other words, they know *exactly* why it doesn't work and won't work, they know *exactly* the hell that it can and will create, under what circumstances, and they know *precisely* how they've been betrayed by the rail-roaded decisions made by distros without consulting them as to the complexities of the scenario to which they have been (successfully up until that point) deploying a GNU/Linux system.
also they've done the research - looked up systemd vs other init systems on the CVE mitre databases and gone "holy fuck".
also they've seen - perhaps even reported bugs themselves over the years - how well bugs are handled, and how reasonable and welcoming (or in some sad cases not, but generally it's ok) the developers are... then they've looked up the systemd bug database and how pottering abruptly CLOSES LEGITIMATE BUGREPORTS and they've gone "WHAT the fuck??"
also, they've been through the hell that was the "proprietary world", if they're REALLY old they've witnessed first-hand the "Unix Wars" and if they're not that old they experienced the domination of Windows through the 1990s. they know what a monoculture looks like and how dangerous that is for a computing eco-system.
in short, i have to apologise for pointing this out: they can read the danger signs far better than you can. sorry!:)
And, hey, systemd while implementing everything (according to critics) still has less bugs than sysvinit alone. systemd: 272 bugs; sysvinit: 383 bugs.
While poorly implementing things it has no business implementing, and while poettering closes completely valid bug reports as if they were nonsense which also has a chilling effect on people filing more bug reports, systemd still has more bugs than sysvinit? That's your argument in favor?
Except that the people who know the most are unarguably the distro maintainers
[citation needed]
We know they know more about rolling distributions than most of us do. That's all we can tell without further scrutiny. Since the Debian community's leaders were pretty well split on whether they should adopt systemd, your attempt to paint it as a simple decision is extremely disingenuous. That's always a sign of a weak argument.
and they've chosen to adopt and develop systemd.
Most haven't chosen, most are based on redhate or debian and had no choice at all. Isn't Linux about choice? It's been conclusively proven that it's possible to mak
Since the Debian community's leaders were pretty well split on whether they should adopt systemd,
Not really "pretty well split":
The Technical committee had 8 members.
Just taking the first preferences of the members four wanted systemd, two wanted upstart and two wanted further discussion.
Debian's voting system being somewhat more complicated than almost any other on earth it ended up as a tie between systemd and upstart (only one person didn't put sysvinit as the last or next to last choice). The chair of the committee cast his tie breaker for systemd.
The gory details are publicly available here: http [debian.org]
Every time SystemD is brought up we have these religious debates. I have yet to see anything with real substance on the merits of one Init system versus another. It always devolves into complaining about who the developer is, or how some change makes an admin feel about something. I run a box with systemD on it at work every day and haven't had any issues that weren't self inflicted. Of course, I do higher level development in Java/C/C++ and don't really need to tie into Init for any reason.
People who complain about systemd the most seem to have been using Linux for a very long time and just "don't want to change".
no, that's not it. people who have been using linux for a long time usually *know the corner-cases better*...
One could also s
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
I have no problem with systemd (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, yeah I know the history of its development and how log files are binary and the whole debug kernel flag fiasco. And I don't care. By the time I used systemd, that had already long passed.
I switched from Squeeze to Jessie a couple years ago, had some growing pains as I learned how to use systemd... but that was it. No stability issues, no bugs. Can't say whether things run better, but they definitely don't run worse.
I had only really been using Linux for a few years before the onset of systemd, and hon
Re:I have no problem with systemd (Score:5, Informative)
People who complain about systemd the most seem to have been using Linux for a very long time and just "don't want to change".
no, that's not it. people who have been using linux for a long time usually *know the corner-cases better*. in other words, they know *exactly* why it doesn't work and won't work, they know *exactly* the hell that it can and will create, under what circumstances, and they know *precisely* how they've been betrayed by the rail-roaded decisions made by distros without consulting them as to the complexities of the scenario to which they have been (successfully up until that point) deploying a GNU/Linux system.
also they've done the research - looked up systemd vs other init systems on the CVE mitre databases and gone "holy fuck".
also they've seen - perhaps even reported bugs themselves over the years - how well bugs are handled, and how reasonable and welcoming (or in some sad cases not, but generally it's ok) the developers are... then they've looked up the systemd bug database and how pottering abruptly CLOSES LEGITIMATE BUGREPORTS and they've gone "WHAT the fuck??"
also, they've been through the hell that was the "proprietary world", if they're REALLY old they've witnessed first-hand the "Unix Wars" and if they're not that old they experienced the domination of Windows through the 1990s. they know what a monoculture looks like and how dangerous that is for a computing eco-system.
in short, i have to apologise for pointing this out: they can read the danger signs far better than you can. sorry! :)
Re: (Score:2)
And, hey, systemd while implementing everything (according to critics) still has less bugs than sysvinit alone. systemd: 272 bugs; sysvinit: 383 bugs.
While poorly implementing things it has no business implementing, and while poettering closes completely valid bug reports as if they were nonsense which also has a chilling effect on people filing more bug reports, systemd still has more bugs than sysvinit? That's your argument in favor?
Re: (Score:1)
systemd still has more bugs than sysvinit?
Uh, in my world 272 is a smaller number than 383. It isn't the same where you come from?
By the way, you may think Lennart Poettering is the Devil himself, but he isn't a Debian developer, so can't close bugs at bugs.debian.org.
Re: (Score:1)
An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if the authority is not really an authority.
Re: (Score:1)
*know the corner-cases better*. in other words, they know *exactly* why it doesn't work and won't work
Except that the people who know the most are unarguably the distro maintainers and they've chosen to adopt and develop systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the people who know the most are unarguably the distro maintainers
[citation needed]
We know they know more about rolling distributions than most of us do. That's all we can tell without further scrutiny. Since the Debian community's leaders were pretty well split on whether they should adopt systemd, your attempt to paint it as a simple decision is extremely disingenuous. That's always a sign of a weak argument.
and they've chosen to adopt and develop systemd.
Most haven't chosen, most are based on redhate or debian and had no choice at all. Isn't Linux about choice? It's been conclusively proven that it's possible to mak
Re: (Score:2)
Since the Debian community's leaders were pretty well split on whether they should adopt systemd,
Not really "pretty well split":
The Technical committee had 8 members.
Just taking the first preferences of the members four wanted systemd, two wanted upstart and two wanted further discussion.
Debian's voting system being somewhat more complicated than almost any other on earth it ended up as a tie between systemd and upstart (only one person didn't put sysvinit as the last or next to last choice). The chair of the committee cast his tie breaker for systemd.
The gory details are publicly available here: http [debian.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Every time SystemD is brought up we have these religious debates. I have yet to see anything with real substance on the merits of one Init system versus another. It always devolves into complaining about who the developer is, or how some change makes an admin feel about something. I run a box with systemD on it at work every day and haven't had any issues that weren't self inflicted. Of course, I do higher level development in Java/C/C++ and don't really need to tie into Init for any reason.
People who complain about systemd the most seem to have been using Linux for a very long time and just "don't want to change".
no, that's not it. people who have been using linux for a long time usually *know the corner-cases better*...
One could also s