Here's a list of actual problems that should have been solved instead of introducing the nightmare of systemd upon the Linux (Debian specifically) world:
- Forceful, unconditional kernel operations. When I say "unmount this filesystem," I'm not asking a question. When I say "terminate this process," I expect the process to be removed from memory and the runqueue, regardless of consequences.
- When I say "reboot" I mean "reboot." Hangs are not okay, ever.
- Actual, real soft NFS failures. Do not hang duri
Thank you! Finally someone actually outlines specific issues instead of just complaining.
But I have to say, I'm using Jessie and I have not experienced any of the problems you have cited... When I kill a process, it gets killed. When I reboot or shutdown, it reboots or shuts down. When I mount/unmount something, it gets mounted/unmounted. The other stuff I can't speak to.
Just my $0.02 as well. Not a 25-year Linux admin, I've run my own server for ~5 years, so I didn't have that much experience before the ch
Thank you! Finally someone actually outlines specific issues instead of just complaining.
Well most of the issues he complained about weren't actually related to Systemd.
But I have to say, I'm using Jessie and I have not experienced any of the problems you have cited... When I kill a process, it gets killed. When I reboot or shutdown, it reboots or shuts down. When I mount/unmount something, it gets mounted/unmounted. The other stuff I can't speak to.
Can I ask, why don't you and other admins/devs like you start to contribute to systemd? Obviously there are huge philosophical differences between the systemd devs and parts of the Linux community, but if people like you never get involved in systemd development because of those issues, can you really expect them to change?
For one thing contributing to a project like that is a massive commitment, but more to the point the poster is fundament
For one thing contributing to a project like that is a massive commitment
Sure, that's totally understandable. But there are people who have enough time to fork entire distros, like Devaun... So while you could make that argument on an individual basis, you can't honestly say that "only the people who like systemd's philosophy have time to contribute to systemd".
but more to the point the poster is fundamentally opposed to the underlying philosophy of Systemd.
That's fair too, but that's life. Sometimes you have to deal with things you are fundamentally opposed to. As long as that's the position someone is going to take, they shouldn't really expect things to change. Again, sel
>To me, the fact that the major distros have adopted systemd is strong evidence that it is probably better
"Better" is a subjective term. Software (and any product really) does not have some absolute measurable utility. It's utility is specific to an audience. The fact that the major distros switch is probably strong evidence that systemd is "better" for distro developers. But the utility it brings them may not apply to all users, or even any particular user. A big part of the reason people were upset was
Tough question. Depends what that functionality is. Compatibility is valuable but sometimes it must be sacrificed to deal with technical debt or make genuine progress. Even Microsoft had a huge compatibility break with Vista which was needed at the time (even if Vista itself was atrocious). It would depend what those features were, what benefits it gave me. It would be a trade off and should be evaluated as such. A major sacrifice requires an even more major advantage to be worthwhile. I've yet to see any such advantage from anything systemd has added. I'm not saying advantages don't exist, I'm saying whatever they may be they do not benefit me, personally, in any measurable way. The disadvantages however do, and compatibility is the least of them. Config outside/etc is a major deal - it utterly breaks with a standard around which disk space allocation is done professionally./use ought to not even need backups because everything there is supposed to be installed and never hand edited. It means modifying backup strategy which is a big, very risky, cange. Logs aren't where I expect them. Boot errors flash on screen and disappear before you can read them so you have to remember to go look in the binary log to figure out if it was something serious.
I was never a fan of system V. It was a complicated, slow, mess if code duplication. It needed a replacement. I was championing Richard Gooch's make-init circa 2001 (and his devfs, the forerunner to udev, was in my kernels - I built a powerful hardware autoconfig system on it in 2005 when I built the first installable live CD distribution, the way they all work now: I invented it [I later discovered that pclinuxos had invented the same thing independently at the same time but Ubuntu for example still came on two disks, a live CD and separate text based installation disk and more than once I had machines where the live cd ran great but the installed system broke due to disparate hardware setup systems]). Later I praised upstart - it was a fantastic unit system that solved the issues with system V, retained compatibility but was easy to admin, standards and philosophy compliant and fast. It was even parallel.
That is the system that should have won the unit wars. I'm not a huge fan of Ubuntu's eclectic side, unity has always been a fugly unusable mess of a desktop to me - but upstart was great, that and PPAs are Ubuntu two most amazing accomplishments. Sadly one got lost instead of being the world changing tech it deserved to be and it lost to a wholly inferior technology for no sane reason.
systemd has no site dependent configuration outside of/etc.
The files installed in/usr/lib/systemd by packages are not supposed to be modified by the sysadmin -- that's what/etc/systemd is for, putting things that override the distro defaults.
And/etc/default is good enough for every other package but not for systemd.
Eh? There are plenty of packages that pull default configs out of some location in/usr, with/etc/ being an override./etc has long (apart from systemd even) been considered the user-editable configuration, and/usr/share the non-user-editable configuration area (among other things).
No. I didn't change anything. No configs, editable or otherwise, should exist outside/etc. Configs installed by packages which should be overridden rather than edited (what you described the ones under/usr as being) belong under/etc/default. They no more belong under/usr than the similar files installed by a thousand other packages do.
Mostly these are packages that predate the establishment of the/etc/default standard, or packages that are small third-party things that aren't shipped by distros, or are so badly coded that you can't actually change installation paths during the build process. Because even if packages typically don't do it, distros would usually change that- even when it means applying patches to the code while building packages (official debian packages almost always have patches included to modify the package to debian s
Mostly these are packages that predate the establishment of the/etc/default standard,
Given all the packages I've had to mess around with over the years and seeing how they like to do things, I think/etc/default was a very short-lived standard that most just didn't pick up. I'm looking backwards at some of the distros I've used over the years, and I just don't see that it got a lot of traction.
Even if you are right it doesn't follow that text config files belong in/usr/lib does it? That's where libraries go. At the very least if it had to be under/usr it ought to have been in/usr/share/SystemD
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
Problems with Linux that should have been solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a list of actual problems that should have been solved instead of introducing the nightmare of systemd upon the Linux (Debian specifically) world:
- Forceful, unconditional kernel operations. When I say "unmount this filesystem," I'm not asking a question. When I say "terminate this process," I expect the process to be removed from memory and the runqueue, regardless of consequences.
- When I say "reboot" I mean "reboot." Hangs are not okay, ever.
- Actual, real soft NFS failures. Do not hang duri
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you! Finally someone actually outlines specific issues instead of just complaining.
But I have to say, I'm using Jessie and I have not experienced any of the problems you have cited... When I kill a process, it gets killed. When I reboot or shutdown, it reboots or shuts down. When I mount/unmount something, it gets mounted/unmounted. The other stuff I can't speak to.
Just my $0.02 as well. Not a 25-year Linux admin, I've run my own server for ~5 years, so I didn't have that much experience before the ch
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! Finally someone actually outlines specific issues instead of just complaining.
Well most of the issues he complained about weren't actually related to Systemd.
But I have to say, I'm using Jessie and I have not experienced any of the problems you have cited... When I kill a process, it gets killed. When I reboot or shutdown, it reboots or shuts down. When I mount/unmount something, it gets mounted/unmounted. The other stuff I can't speak to.
Usually no, but it happens [noah.org]
Can I ask, why don't you and other admins/devs like you start to contribute to systemd? Obviously there are huge philosophical differences between the systemd devs and parts of the Linux community, but if people like you never get involved in systemd development because of those issues, can you really expect them to change?
For one thing contributing to a project like that is a massive commitment, but more to the point the poster is fundament
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing contributing to a project like that is a massive commitment
Sure, that's totally understandable. But there are people who have enough time to fork entire distros, like Devaun... So while you could make that argument on an individual basis, you can't honestly say that "only the people who like systemd's philosophy have time to contribute to systemd".
but more to the point the poster is fundamentally opposed to the underlying philosophy of Systemd.
That's fair too, but that's life. Sometimes you have to deal with things you are fundamentally opposed to. As long as that's the position someone is going to take, they shouldn't really expect things to change. Again, sel
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
>To me, the fact that the major distros have adopted systemd is strong evidence that it is probably better
"Better" is a subjective term. Software (and any product really) does not have some absolute measurable utility. It's utility is specific to an audience. The fact that the major distros switch is probably strong evidence that systemd is "better" for distro developers. But the utility it brings them may not apply to all users, or even any particular user.
A big part of the reason people were upset was
Re: (Score:2)
So would you be okay with it if it still broke compatibility but that was necessary to add some really important/useful features?
Re: Problems with Linux that should have been solv (Score:4, Insightful)
Tough question. Depends what that functionality is. Compatibility is valuable but sometimes it must be sacrificed to deal with technical debt or make genuine progress. Even Microsoft had a huge compatibility break with Vista which was needed at the time (even if Vista itself was atrocious). /etc is a major deal - it utterly breaks with a standard around which disk space allocation is done professionally. /use ought to not even need backups because everything there is supposed to be installed and never hand edited. It means modifying backup strategy which is a big, very risky, cange. Logs aren't where I expect them. Boot errors flash on screen and disappear before you can read them so you have to remember to go look in the binary log to figure out if it was something serious.
It would depend what those features were, what benefits it gave me. It would be a trade off and should be evaluated as such. A major sacrifice requires an even more major advantage to be worthwhile. I've yet to see any such advantage from anything systemd has added. I'm not saying advantages don't exist, I'm saying whatever they may be they do not benefit me, personally, in any measurable way. The disadvantages however do, and compatibility is the least of them.
Config outside
I was never a fan of system V. It was a complicated, slow, mess if code duplication. It needed a replacement. I was championing Richard Gooch's make-init circa 2001 (and his devfs, the forerunner to udev, was in my kernels - I built a powerful hardware autoconfig system on it in 2005 when I built the first installable live CD distribution, the way they all work now: I invented it [I later discovered that pclinuxos had invented the same thing independently at the same time but Ubuntu for example still came on two disks, a live CD and separate text based installation disk and more than once I had machines where the live cd ran great but the installed system broke due to disparate hardware setup systems]). Later I praised upstart - it was a fantastic unit system that solved the issues with system V, retained compatibility but was easy to admin, standards and philosophy compliant and fast. It was even parallel.
That is the system that should have won the unit wars. I'm not a huge fan of Ubuntu's eclectic side, unity has always been a fugly unusable mess of a desktop to me - but upstart was great, that and PPAs are Ubuntu two most amazing accomplishments. Sadly one got lost instead of being the world changing tech it deserved to be and it lost to a wholly inferior technology for no sane reason.
It's the Amiga of the Linux world.
Re: Problems with Linux that should have been sol (Score:2)
I should not comment from my phone. Man autocorrect rapes my text...
Re: (Score:1)
Config outside /etc is a major deal
It's also a major misunderstanding of systemd.
systemd has no site dependent configuration outside of /etc.
The files installed in /usr/lib/systemd by packages are not supposed to be modified by the sysadmin -- that's what /etc/systemd is for, putting things that override the distro defaults.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... /etc/default is good enough for every other package but not for systemd.
And
You know, if you don't follow the standards and "misconceptions" arise - it's the fault of bad development.
Re: (Score:1)
Great groaning sound as the goalposts are shifted.
You're changing "Config outside /etc is a major deal" to "Config outside /etc/default is a major deal" now?
Are you unable to admit that one of your complaints about systemd, which you described as "a major deal" was simply wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
And /etc/default is good enough for every other package but not for systemd.
Eh? There are plenty of packages that pull default configs out of some location in /usr, with /etc/ being an override. /etc has long (apart from systemd even) been considered the user-editable configuration, and /usr/share the non-user-editable configuration area (among other things).
Re: Problems with Linux that should have been sol (Score:2)
No. I didn't change anything. No configs, editable or otherwise, should exist outside /etc. Configs installed by packages which should be overridden rather than edited (what you described the ones under /usr as being) belong under /etc/default. They no more belong under /usr than the similar files installed by a thousand other packages do.
Re: (Score:1)
No. I didn't change anything.
Oh yes you did. You said:
/use ought to not even need backups because everything there is supposed to be installed and never hand edited
I pointed out that that was exactly the case with systemd and now you've changed the claim to:
No configs, editable or otherwise, should exist outside /etc.
with exactly zero justification.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly these are packages that predate the establishment of the /etc/default standard, or packages that are small third-party things that aren't shipped by distros, or are so badly coded that you can't actually change installation paths during the build process.
Because even if packages typically don't do it, distros would usually change that- even when it means applying patches to the code while building packages (official debian packages almost always have patches included to modify the package to debian s
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly these are packages that predate the establishment of the /etc/default standard,
Given all the packages I've had to mess around with over the years and seeing how they like to do things, I think /etc/default was a very short-lived standard that most just didn't pick up. I'm looking backwards at some of the distros I've used over the years, and I just don't see that it got a lot of traction.
Re: Problems with Linux that should have been sol (Score:2)
Even if you are right it doesn't follow that text config files belong in /usr/lib does it? That's where libraries go. At the very least if it had to be under /usr it ought to have been in /usr/share/SystemD