Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Debian Operating Systems Ubuntu Linux

Linux Mint Will Continue To Provide Both Systemd and Upstart 347

jones_supa writes: After Debian adopted systemd, many other Linux distributions based on that operating system made the switch as well. Ubuntu has already rolled out systemd in 15.04, but Linux Mint is providing dual options for users. The Ubuntu transition was surprisingly painless, and no one really put up a fight, but the Linux Mint team chose the middle ground. The Mint developers consider that the project needs to still wait for systemd to become more stable and mature, before it will be the default and only option.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Mint Will Continue To Provide Both Systemd and Upstart

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11, 2015 @07:34AM (#49662929)

    it's in trying to resolve problems later on, when you'll find that systemd helps you obscure the source of the trouble instead of resolve it.

    • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Monday May 11, 2015 @07:54AM (#49663007)

      It's also in maintaining distinct management tools, configuration analysis, and configuration tools for DHCP, NTP, the new binary logging, space for logging of kernel booting, and whatever other components of the one man band have been added lately. systemd, and especially its core developer Lennart Pottering, are attempting to create a "stateless Linux", and the ramifications are spilling over into other parts of the system.

      Quoting from the b log at http://0pointer.net/blog/proje... [0pointer.net]

      > A Stateless System goes one step further: a system like this never stores /etc or /var on persistent storage, but always comes up with pristine vendor state.

      That is a _huge_ shift in system management, and directly violates the file system hierarchy where host specific configurations are stored in /etc or persistent data in /var/lib. They're basically taking all the daemon specific parameters from /etc and putting them in /run, and they're going to run into most of the same problems but in unfamiliar layouts. Every component that stores history in /var/lib or configuration in /etc will have to be rewritten, including long-standing conventions such as /etc/hosts, /etc/resolv.conf, and /etc/nsswitch.conf.

      • by gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) on Monday May 11, 2015 @08:04AM (#49663047)

        a system like this never stores /etc or /var on persistent storage

        including /var/log?? Well, I suppose that's one way to hide the fact that systemd's logs get corrupted.

      • by Trepidity ( 597 )

        That's not too far from the direction Linux has been going in general, though it's usually baked on top through the use of something like Ansible or Chef that does the factory-reset bit. As the post mentions, CoreOS is also aiming for something similar.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As someone who has spent the last week plus upgrading his server to Jessie, I completely disagree that the pain isn't in the switch. It may very well be that more pain is coming but the switch itself has been quite painful and isn't over yet. How the fuck do you do a meaningful Google search on "systemd complains that starting Apache fails and shows the service as stopped but the process actually starts and Apache is working just fine, systemd apparently just doesn't know it?"

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I'm on ubuntu 14.04 and a few times now, systemd of some kind (udev, I think) went cpu bound on me. my fan started spinning like crazy. kill -9 fixed that (the systemd proc). afaict, nothing else went wrong after I killed that proc.

      its still not ready for production use. give it 2 years AT LEAST. if I was sysadmin at a place that needed reliable linux, I'd stay back on a non-sysd system for about that long, if not longer.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The reason that "nobody put up a fight" is because every intelligent Linux user has seen systemd for the disaster that it is, and they've moved to FreeBSD, PC-BSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD or DragonFly BSD months ago. The only Linux users left are the ones who'd be just as happy using Windows, which is pretty much what they get when using a modern GNU/Systemd/Linux distro.

    • I'm sorry, but what? This has to be the most amazing amount of wishful thinking I've ever seen. If it were true, expect the various *BSD communities to be having a mini-freakout right now as they try to handle a massive influx of people completely unfamiliar with how BSD does things, and who - having switched solely because of 'init' - are finding that BSD's version is even less like sysvinit than systemd.

      And unless Windows has become amazingly secure and sanely designed over the last few years, I think

      • by byuu ( 1455609 )
        What are you talking about? The FreeBSD forums have a ton of news members lately, all moving away from systemd. Including myself.

        And rc.d is absolutely nothing like systemd. It's far more like SysVinit in that it's just an init system, and not a (DNS server, binary logging system, network time daemon, login daemon, console daemon, HTTP server, QR-code generator, hardware device manager, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.) Only rc.d is far simpler and nicer than SysVinit. It's a thing of beauty. I s
    • by ookaze ( 227977 )

      The reason that "nobody put up a fight" is because every intelligent Linux user has seen systemd for the disaster that it is, and they've moved to FreeBSD, PC-BSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD or DragonFly BSD months ago. The only Linux users left are the ones who'd be just as happy using Windows, which is pretty much what they get when using a modern GNU/Systemd/Linux distro.

      So I'm a unintelligent Linux user that is happoy using Windows to you.
      You should revise your hypothesis, as you're plain wrong in my case: I just can't stand using Windows, the latest one I've used is Win7 though, and I can't stand using it as it doesn't work correctly. I can assure you none of the Linux I use/make/administer are like Windows, I actually understand how they work far more than any Windows I ever used, and they don't crash like Windows.

  • Yeah mint! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlackPignouf ( 1017012 ) on Monday May 11, 2015 @07:42AM (#49662967)

    One more reason to use Mint.
    That's the best they could do out of this situation.

    • Re:Yeah mint! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11, 2015 @08:00AM (#49663029)

      Precisely. I can't get that everyone and his dog is rolling over and playing dead with this. They *ALL* remember what came of all of Lennart's OTHER projects. Stuff looking for problems to realistically solve. Stuff that's still not QUITE "right" and the man, rather than finishing the job, moves on to the next disaster. This is no different. This has no place in a "mission critical" space- and yet they're letting them do it. I question the sanity of Red Hat in bankrolling this travesty and then jamming it down our throats in the FIRST damn place. Just like with PulseAudio. No compelling anything, really, and the proponents keep thinking that network service on this little userland mixer feature (which should've been a service of the DRIVER layer for one piece, the mixer) is the greatest thing- when it's part of the latency problems with sound. First hint it's stupid...Android doesn't use it.

      • Re:Yeah mint! (Score:4, Informative)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 11, 2015 @10:41AM (#49664115) Journal
        The reason so many distros have adopted systemd is because it fills a need: it does something useful for them. This topic [slashdot.org] has been exposited [slashdot.org]. In the second link, note how much shorter the unit file is than the init script. That is why distro maintainers have adopted systemd, because they have to write less code.

        So Lennart found something people needed, and built it. That's why people adopted it. You don't have to like systemd, but you should at least understand why it's been adopted.
    • Re:Yeah mint! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Feral Nerd ( 3929873 ) on Monday May 11, 2015 @08:38AM (#49663197)

      One more reason to use Mint. That's the best they could do out of this situation.

      The thing about staying neutral in a war of religion is that you run the risk of being branded a heretic by both sides.

      • Great quote, thanks.
        With the exact same arguments (basically, I'm for the inalienable right of existence for Israel, but against colonialism and disproportionate strikes against civilians), I've been labeled a terrorist, an antisemite or a sionist, depending on whom I talk to.

  • How long before they have to replace anything beyond the GNU stuff with something out of the 90s to avoid dragging in the systemd shoggoth via some dependency or other?

    • by jbolden ( 176878 )

      I'd guess about 5 years to you'll need to be on anti-systemd distributions that have hundreds of upstream packages they don't support or only support with lesser known (less supported) compile options. Upstream is aggressively putting systemd dependencies in, Linux software has chains of dependencies. So distributions like Crux and Alpine will have to become very aggressive about "no".

  • Mint is a fairly popular and stable distro, so they've got a great opportunity to get some hard data on the whole systemd thing. Hopefully the choice of default and how the choice is presented to users is done in an even handed manner (maybe randomized like MS did with the EU browser selection ballot in Windows) and they are gathering some stats. Even though there's no chance of it ending the dispute, I'd be really curious to see the the answers to these:

    How many users choose Upstart?
    How many users choose systemd?
    How many users choose Upstart when it's not the default option?
    How many users choose systemd when it's not the default option?
    How many more downloads does this release get than a typical release (potentially indicating people switching from other systemd-only distros), if any?
    • by jbolden ( 176878 )

      I don't think that's terribly useful information regarding users. The question has never been which do end users support, end users mostly don't care. Among those who do care, you have a lot of traditionalist system admin types and those are probably substantially biased in the anti-systemd direction. Systemd breaks stuff they care about. The benefits won't be seen till years later and mostly will be experienced by people other than them.

      What's important is not that. But rather as upstream packages d

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11, 2015 @08:29AM (#49663145)

    systemd is an abomination.

    Linux's benefit for a long time now has been the ability to swap functionality out you don't like for other functionality that you do. I don't know who in their right mind thought it was okay to move critical system infrastructure systems (init, time, logging, etc) into the hands of an untested piece of software which clearly has very deep issues, written mostly by a developer who has a track record of making extraordinarily poor choices in software development and writing poor code.

    What's stunning to me is that smart people in leadership positions in a variety of distributions have decided to support such an asinine system. What's even more stunning is that Lennart didn't stop them, realizing his code was not appropriate in production environments and doing the responsible thing, which is to say "We're far from ready". systemd's position as PID 1 on Linux systems creates an enormous SPOF given the complexity of the code. The only sane position systemd developers can take is "we're not ready, please don't use this even as a test in your released distributions".

    For all practical purposes, the rapid and unseemly adoption of systemd means that many enterprises running distributions that now rely upon systemd have to make the decision to not trust their distribution any more if they consider their systems mission critical. This is going to make people move to FreeBSD, Oracle, Windows, non-systemd distributions, microservice/microkernels, etc in rapid fashion. It is going to literally kill Linux for the people who have not yet figured out how to deal with the loss of machines (the majority of the enterprise world). And that may be a good thing, in the sense that Linux has in many ways become indistinguishable and directionless in the sea of operating system options. It tries to be far too many things to far too many people.

    Lennart likes to whine about how much the community hates him and how much people take it out on him personally. Reality is that outside of a few people who take it much too far, the reason people don't like Lennart is because he makes poor decisions with poor forethought and his advocacy and arrogance for his own approach have a seriously negative effect on a great many people, enterprises, and efforts. He likes to think he is a genius and we simply don't understand his vision, but for a great many people, his vision is the antithesis of what we like about Linux and Unix. Systemd developers don't understand the arguments of simplicity, composability, and small programs that do one thing well.

    The truth is the fault doesn't rely totally upon Lennart and his team: Some of the blame can also be assigned to Linus for poor stewardship, but Linus has a set of complex motives and organizations that influence him. Linus should have killed this stuff much earlier.

    I think in a few years, we'll realize what a mistake we made in giving Mr. Poettering any chance of credibility in operating system software development.
    I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

    • by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Monday May 11, 2015 @10:39AM (#49664091) Homepage

      Let me just point out, Oracle Linux 7 is systemd only. Oracle switched Jul 23, 2014. So yet another enterprise vendor that doesn't buy into the whole "systemd isn't mission critical ready" meme you all are pushing.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Oracle Linux is just rebranded Redhat. Oracle switched because Redhat switched (ditto CentOS and all the other Redhat-based distros), not because they saw any inherent superiority in systemd. (And guess who Poettering works for? Hint, their logo is a crimson fedora.)

        Sure, Oracle is big enough they could have forked it, but then it wouldn't be 100% Redhat compatible, and they'd have to hire developers to actually write code rather just have a script that globally replaces Redhat trademarks with Oracle tr

        • by jbolden ( 176878 )

          The claim of the other poster is that systemd is not enterprise ready. I'd say Oracle's endorsement is a fairly clear refutation of that or at least strong counter evidence.

          I'd agree that Oracle's Linux team didn't care much. They were following RedHat's lead but the fact that they followed RedHat's lead still means a lot. If they hated it, they would have picked a non-systemd choice for Oracle Linux instead of RHEL.

          • I understand what you are trying to say, that the GGP's post is ridiculous and hyperbolic (seriously, Poettering's code isn't that bad....the absolute worst you can say about it is that he needs to improve as a software architect; that post is moronic).

            Still, I don't think I would hold up Oracle as an example of good judgement. They may be thinking, "as long as it's as stable as RedHat, we don't care."
    • What's stunning to me is that smart people in leadership positions in a variety of distributions have decided to support such an asinine system.

      You don't understand why because you don't understand the benefits that systemd provides.

      It makes writing an init script quite a bit easier, and since the distro leaders spend a lot of time doing that, systemd made their lives easier.

    • by ookaze ( 227977 )

      systemd's position as PID 1 on Linux systems creates an enormous SPOF given the complexity of the code. The only sane position systemd developers can take is "we're not ready, please don't use this even as a test in your released distributions".

      So that everyone can see the level of BS of this user : "Linux's position as a kernel on Linux systems creates an enormous SPOF given the complexity of the code. The only sane position Linux developers can take is "we're not ready, please don't use this even as a test in your released distributions".
      This is the level of discussion, it's pathetic actually.

      For all practical purposes, the rapid and unseemly adoption of systemd means that many enterprises running distributions that now rely upon systemd have to make the decision to not trust their distribution any more if they consider their systems mission critical. This is going to make people move to FreeBSD, Oracle, Windows, non-systemd distributions, microservice/microkernels, etc in rapid fashion. It is going to literally kill Linux for the people who have not yet figured out how to deal with the loss of machines (the majority of the enterprise world). And that may be a good thing, in the sense that Linux has in many ways become indistinguishable and directionless in the sea of operating system options. It tries to be far too many things to far too many people.

      The problem for you shills of proprietary OS vendors and appliances, is that Linux actually succeeds in being many things to far too many people (in your e

  • Thank you, Mint (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Infamous Grimace ( 525297 ) <emailpsc@gmail.com> on Monday May 11, 2015 @09:15AM (#49663397) Homepage

    Seriously. Thank you for giving me a choice. If I want to try systemd and see if I run into issues with my particular use-cases, I can. If I want to avoid the possibility of conflicts and continue with the (admittedly crufty) sysvinit scripts I can.

  • False summary (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The summary (and the article it links to) have the situation backward. Ubuntu is the distribution which is offering users the coice of booting using Upstart or systemd. Under Ubuntu you can currently chose which init software to use (as of Ubuntu 15.04). Linux Mint does not do this, at least not yet.

    Linux Mint has two primary branches, Linux Mint Main (which uses Upstart for init) and Linux Mint Debian Edition (which uses SysV Init). Which each branch you get just one init technology, you don'tget to choose

  • by cryptogranny ( 4109873 ) on Monday May 11, 2015 @09:50AM (#49663663)
    The mint team is doing a right thing. I'm writing this from a CentOS 7 machine that I'm using to test systemd. One day, when the XFS partition was corrupted I realized that the system can't do usual self check and self repair. Why? Because systemd.fsck module runs fsck.xfs which according to the manual "simply exits with a zero exit status". You can boot with init=/bin/bash, but can't correct system scripts to change the behavior, everything is in binaries now.
  • To be honest, I never got what all the rage is about. As with the foaming at the mouth because of Gnome 3.

    I do 'get' init and runlevels and I like them. I can change them with a texteditor and they're all fairly neatly sorted in someplace below /etc or something (can't remember exactly, to lazy to check now). I haven't used runlevels in 9 years or so, I'm not an admin, but I know when they're useful and I probably could start editing and switching them within 5 minutes.

    I don't know what all the systemd hate is about, but the shrill voices of nerds who don't have enough sex to remain cool irritate me. I can asure you that I'll chime in if I find out somewhere down the line, when I need runlevels or systemd's equivalent and there's no replacement to be found - some neat newfangled click-tool or equaly easy or better neat textfiles and directories to fiddle about with.

    I know very well that systemd will die a very quick death if it turns out to be a shitty system in practice. It's FOSS folks - if it's shit and there's a better, working FOSS alternative people will move (back) to it faster than you can say "Mambo out, Joomla in". No reason to get all that worked up as if the world has ended.

    AFAICT that won't happen. systemd is with all the new distros - apparently for the simple reasons that it boots faster. Well, it that appears to be a good enough reason for many people, so be it. New issues probably will be patched and the simple fact that systemd has most distros on its side probably is momentum enough to make init a thing of the past.

    That aside, there are, IMHO, way more pressing issues plagueing Linux and it annoys me that no one seems to care about those.

    Like for instance: Why is monodevelop the only dev-environment that does not crash on me after a regular installation?

    Why do Anjuta, KDevelop, Codeblocks etc. crash on me on mint pure native Debian or Ubuntu linux installs when I attempt to compile something? Isn't the C family of languages our native turf?

    Why do 49 out of 50 attempts to compile something downloaded in source from Github or SourceForge fail with obscure error messages? Does something like this still happen on software systems in 2015?? Color me suprised.

    Why am I tempted to register with Apple, download XCode and be done with it? This doesn't feel right.

    How about fixing or getting all worked up about that shit? It's a shame I can't compile native Linux software on Linux simply due to the fact that all the rest of the bunch aren't as disciplined as Linus Torwalds and get their fucking C/C++ pipeline in order.

    The truth is, Linux will be going nowhere if we don't fix some basics, simple down a little and perhaps move towards open or at least fixed-standard hardware concepts. Wether some dude or distro thinks systemd is awesome or not shouldn't matter that much.

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Working...