systemd

excollier

Is anyone else here more than a little concerned by the oncoming "takeover" of all things Linux by systemd.
I am surprised how the bigger part of the Linux community seems to be sleepwalking into this "trap".
I'm no developer or guru but it seems very suspicious to my mind, given the usual attitude of most Linux users to homogenisation - which is what this represents. It's very alarming to me, a mere user of Linux.

L.Jenkins

I was under the illusion that Systemd is the init daemon or what is considered the root daemon for the entire System process tree. Can someone explain what the issue seems to be?

Johnboy1951

A couple of links to get you started

https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141127.212941.f55acc3a.en.html

https://devuan.org/

L.Jenkins

Thanks for the links Johnny. I need to start contributing to projects once I can get a handle on Linux Development.

croo

I haven't read a lot about this yet - just happened across the /. article.
Reading some of the comments there i came across this
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7645524.html#7645524
which puts a very interesting angle on it ... namely that the change is not technically motivated but a way to allow proprietary software work around the GPL. I've no idea of the greater debate but I thought this was interesting.

excollier

I read (and I cannot remember where) that if systemd continues then most Linux based operating systems will become like Windows in that they will have a large single point of failure/attack. Also when updates are installed then the Windows trait of needing a re-boot to complete update installations will be the norm.....who the hell needs that....I came to Linux to escape all that nonsense.
Seems to me that systemd is a devious plant/virus created by a large corporate entity that already has these problems to bring Linux down to their level and eliminate the competition that Linux is beginning to present to them.
I have been trying out PC-BSD in case I need to jump ship again, trouble is that Apple and Oracle have a large interest in anything BSD based, so the large corporations have a stranglehold on Open Source and Linux in particular is their target for control or elimination.
Worrying times for anyone interested in any sort of computing independence.

Edit: even BSD are considering systemd - is there no stopping this "Windowsisation" of Open Source operating systems , they seem intent on dragging it down.

azzeretti

excollier wrote: »

Is anyone else here more than a little concerned by the oncoming "takeover" of all things Linux by systemd.
I am surprised how the bigger part of the Linux community seems to be sleepwalking into this "trap".
I'm no developer or guru but it seems very suspicious to my mind, given the usual attitude of most Linux users to homogenisation - which is what this represents. It's very alarming to me, a mere user of Linux.

Redhat and Arch have been using systemd for a couple of years now, which should allay peoples fears somewhat. The real problem is the fear of all distros becoming almost identical. It's a very heated topic at the moment, spefically in the Debian community where lots of devs have resigned over the last week or so. Ian Jackson stepped down this week which was shortly followed by the announment of a Debian fork (http://devuan.org/). Its like Saipan multipled by a thousand!

I have been listening to both sides of the systemd argument for most of the year (at least since Debian voted to replace sysvinit) and its a mess. I haven't decided yet but it's getting very aggressive with Lennart Poettering getting close to death threats recently. Which is fecking madness; its only software!

croo

I have been listening to both sides of the systemd argument for most of the year... The real problem is the fear of all distros becoming almost identical.

After listening to a year of this do you know anything about the assertion from my link that the real change is that systemd uses RPC [typically used in a distributed system] instead of linking and so allows the easier integration on non-GPL code into Linux? Is there anything to do? The link makes some sense; RPC is typically [as its name implies] used to call remote systems but I can imagine that it might also be that case that RPC offers a way to implement a "separation of concerns" - a principle of object orientated programming/design.

excollier

Just because Red Hat, a commercial enterprise, uses systemd doesn't make it right or proper.
If that were the case then we might as well go back to using Windows, and let them dictate to us, because that is what is happening.
A dictatorship is being formed by making everything depend on systemd.
If it progresses then we will be using systemd with Linux as an add on, which is surely back to front.
If Lennart Poettering wants to make his own OS / kernel then he should go ahead, let Red Hat become a proprietary system like Windows or Mac, but don't force the rest of us to swallow this bitter pill.
I stopped using Windows a couple of years ago, and have no use for it and it's dictatorial nature. I simply don't want to see Linux slowly, sneakily subsumed into a proprietary mess.
Makes me wonder who is really behind systemd.

Kavrocks

excollier wrote: »

Just because Red Hat, a commercial enterprise, uses systemd doesn't make it right or proper.
If that were the case then we might as well go back to using Windows, and let them dictate to us, because that is what is happening.
A dictatorship is being formed by making everything depend on systemd.
If it progresses then we will be using systemd with Linux as an add on, which is surely back to front.
If Lennart Poettering wants to make his own OS / kernel then he should go ahead, let Red Hat become a proprietary system like Windows or Mac, but don't force the rest of us to swallow this bitter pill.
I stopped using Windows a couple of years ago, and have no use for it and it's dictatorial nature. I simply don't want to see Linux slowly, sneakily subsumed into a proprietary mess.
Makes me wonder who is really behind systemd.

Whilst I'm quite new to this debate it does not seem to me as if systemd has been forced upon any Linux distribution. It seems like many have weighed up the pros and cons of systemd, sysvinit, etc. and have decided systemd is the way to go. It doesn't seem all bad but for those maintaining and developing for certain distributions it appears to make their lives much easier and if that is the case why shouldn't they move towards? Why should they persist with complex outdated init scripts?

I too despise Windows and would hate to see Linux go down the same route but arguing about it won't accomplish anything. What will is to develop an alternative which I've seen very little about even though systemd has been used in some distributions for over a year.

excollier

It isn't being forced, but it is being made difficult to avoid, because packages are being made dependent on systemd.
Also systemd is very much more than an init daemon, it is taking control of many processes, creating a very large single point of failure/attack. Something similar to Windows' svchost, apparently.
Ever heard of the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
An alternative is emerging, and hopefully will pick up momentum in the near future

https://devuan.org/.

I don't want an operating system that needs to be re-booted after every update and is an easy target for viruses - who the hell wants to go back to that that after escaping it once.
I am not clever enough to develop / code so I cannot help in that way, but I will certainly contribute money to the above to develop a systemd free Linux.

syklops

excollier wrote: »

It isn't being forced, but it is being made difficult to avoid, because packages are being made dependent on systemd.
Also systemd is very much more than an init daemon, it is taking control of many processes, creating a very large single point of failure/attack. Something similar to Windows' svchost, apparently.
Ever heard of the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
An alternative is emerging, and hopefully will pick up momentum in the near future

https://devuan.org/.

I don't want an operating system that needs to be re-booted after every update and is an easy target for viruses - who the hell wants to go back to that that after escaping it once.
I am not clever enough to develop / code so I cannot help in that way, but I will certainly contribute money to the above to develop a systemd free Linux.

One of the biggest arguments I have seen for it is that it can start various services in parallel, meaning much faster boot times, but for me anyway, the days of me starting my PC everyday are gone, and instead my equipment has uptimes of many months and sometimes more. Maybe it makes more sense for mobile devices, but one bugbear of mine is changing Linux features for future use in Mobile systems. SOme of the relativly new changes to KDE are for use on tablets. Is KDE on any Tablets currently? No. Is it going to be? Maybe.

PrzemoF

azzeretti wrote: »

[..]
I have been listening to both sides of the systemd argument for most of the year (at least since Debian voted to replace sysvinit) and its a mess. I haven't decided yet but it's getting very aggressive with Lennart Poettering getting close to death threats recently. Which is fecking madness; its only software!

Yea, the threats are mad, but please don't say it's "only" software. This days software is controlling in some way or another your money, freedom, car, health care, social life, science, you name it.

P.S. I'm actively looking for a systemd free distro & window manager after being fedora & gnome user for a long time. Slackware & enlightment anyone?

Kavrocks

excollier wrote: »

Also systemd is very much more than an init daemon, it is taking control of many processes, creating a very large single point of failure/attack. Something similar to Windows' svchost, apparently.
Ever heard of the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

I don't want an operating system that needs to be re-booted after every update and is an easy target for viruses - who the hell wants to go back to that that after escaping it once.

I completely agree with what you've said, I can just see the reasons for making the switch. It can make the lives of maintainers easier and after all why wouldn't they go down that route?

I think you have to stop thinking that they are developing these distros for you and that its for themselves primarily in order to understand why systemd is 'taking over' (for want of a better phrase).

syklops

PrzemoF wrote: »

Yea, the threats are mad, but please don't say it's "only" software. This days software is controlling in some way or another your money, freedom, car, health care, social life, science, you name it.

P.S. I'm actively looking for a systemd free distro & window manager after being fedora & gnome user for a long time. Slackware & enlightment anyone?

I can see an exodus back to Slackware. I've been Fedora and/or CentOS for a long time also, but always under KDE. I wonder what this will mean for KDE.

Systemd is a very polarising issue and the Open Source community has always had fringe elements to whom a polarising issue brought out the worst in them. However, I can't ever remember an issue as contentious as this having such a polarising effect on the community.

azzeretti

PrzemoF wrote: »

Yea, the threats are mad, but please don't say it's "only" software. This days software is controlling in some way or another your money, freedom, car, health care, social life, science, you name it.

Was talking to an old friend of mine recently, hadn't seen him in a while. He tells me he has terminal cancer; wife, two kids under 8 and a dog. He's 36. Believe me, it is only software. There is nothing that warrants the level of abuse and threats going around at the moment.

azzeretti

excollier wrote: »

Just because Red Hat, a commercial enterprise, uses systemd doesn't make it right or proper.
If that were the case then we might as well go back to using Windows, and let them dictate to us, because that is what is happening.
A dictatorship is being formed by making everything depend on systemd.
If it progresses then we will be using systemd with Linux as an add on, which is surely back to front.
If Lennart Poettering wants to make his own OS / kernel then he should go ahead, let Red Hat become a proprietary system like Windows or Mac, but don't force the rest of us to swallow this bitter pill.
I stopped using Windows a couple of years ago, and have no use for it and it's dictatorial nature. I simply don't want to see Linux slowly, sneakily subsumed into a proprietary mess.
Makes me wonder who is really behind systemd.

Most distro's voted on the implementing systemd it wasn't forced on them. Looking at it from a unified point of view; there are plenty of utilts/apps that are the same across all distos - I don't think it will ever be close to Windows/MAC as long as the community have a voice and access to the code.

However, I still don't know where I stand. Binary log files? No thanks. Boot seqence/dependancies in an easy fashion? Maybe. Having Gnome force me to use systemd as a dependancy? REALLY NO.

Johnboy1951

PrzemoF wrote: »

Yea, the threats are mad, but please don't say it's "only" software. This days software is controlling in some way or another your money, freedom, car, health care, social life, science, you name it.

P.S. I'm actively looking for a systemd free distro & window manager after being fedora & gnome user for a long time. Slackware & enlightment anyone?

PCLinuxOS is still free of systemd, thankfully ..... and long may it last.

L.Jenkins

Anyone intent on contributing to the Devuan project. I want to give it a bash, pun intended :P It would technically by my first from a development perspective.

syklops

azzeretti wrote: »

Most distro's voted on the implementing systemd it wasn't forced on them. .

You have to look at the voting schemes. "Most distros voted for it". When were the votes cast? How were they cast? Who had votes?

I don't remember being asked for a vote in anything, and I've been in the community a while.

And tbh, voting isn't how the community did stuff in the past or if it did, it was voting by their feet.Which could happen here as well.

jimgoose

A lot of old SYS-V heads were outraged by Solaris 10s SMF back in the day. It's not that big a deal, and probably no harm to tidy things up a bit and unify them.

jimgoose

syklops wrote: »

I can see an exodus back to Slackware. I've been Fedora and/or CentOS for a long time also, but always under KDE. I wonder what this will mean for KDE.

Systemd is a very polarising issue and the Open Source community has always had fringe elements to whom a polarising issue brought out the worst in them. However, I can't ever remember an issue as contentious as this having such a polarising effect on the community.

Oh FFS, they'll kill each other over anything going back centuries. BSD vs. SYS-V. Emacs vs. vi. Gnome vs. KDE. tin vs. rn. I remember getting into a right temper back in 2007 or so because I suddenly had to start writing XML files in /var/svc/manifest/ on my old UltraSPARC boxes to start/stop stuff. :pac:

PrzemoF

excollier

^^^^^ Indeed!

Tillotson

Good riddance to sys-v init scripts. Unit files are easier to write, handle dependancies better.

Systemd is faster. No longer reliant on bash. Processes can be spawned in a lazy fashion - messages queued in socket/file handle, allows more processes to be started in parallel.

Processes are tracked by cgroup instead of PID improving security and allowing sysadmins greater control over resource allocation.

Structured, binary log. Better/faster querying. What's easier `journalctl -p err -u sshd --since=09:00 --until=12:30` or an awk/sed + grep regex nightmare. Check-sums detect tampering.

Biggest advantage, for me anyway, and probably the most controversial is standardization. I'm sick of each distro re-inventing the wheel, badly. Standardize paths, standardize api's, standardize tools and let me get on with it.

Hotblack Desiato

Meh.

If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't complain if distros don't agree with you, set up your own or support one which does.

Been using it exclusively for over two years now, only noticeable change is much faster and more reliable booting and shutdown.

Ultimately, it's Free software and everything that depends on it is Free software, if you don't like it then nothing is stopping you from writing something better.

The stuff about how it's going to force proprietary software and open linux up to viruses is just guff. I've been using systemd for longer than some of the more voiciferous posters here have been using linux.

excollier

Trouble is, it allows one commercial distro, Red Hat, to dictate to everyone else, like it or not. I stopped using Windows because of that arrogant attitude, and now I see it creeping, no - blatantly barging, into the Linux world.
Who knows what Red Hat will decide in future - perhaps when systemd is full in control of everything Linux they will say "well, folks, we have patented systemd and now we have decided that to use Linux you have to buy a licence from us at €100 a shot"...remind you of anyone?
If you cannot see that this is just plain wrong, then you have been blinded by L. Poettering's nasty piece of work.

Tillotson

excollier wrote: »

Trouble is, it allows one commercial distro, Red Hat, to dictate to everyone else, like it or not. I stopped using Windows because of that arrogant attitude, and now I see it creeping, no - blatantly barging, into the Linux world.
Who knows what Red Hat will decide in future - perhaps when systemd is full in control of everything Linux they will say "well, folks, we have patented systemd and now we have decided that to use Linux you have to buy a licence from us at €100 a shot"...remind you of anyone?
If you cannot see that this is just plain wrong, then you have been blinded by L. Poettering's nasty piece of work.

Redhat employs more engineers contributing more code to Linux projects than anyone else. What do you contribute apart from spewing venomous conspiracies on public forums?

excollier

Conspiracy theory? None so blind as those who will not see.
Who do you trust? Red Hat / Lennart Poettering or Linus Torvalds?
Torvalds remains systemd neutral (ish) but doesn't like the fact that some developers of systemd are sloppy coders and that it is full of problems they refuse to fix. This will come back to bite down the line.

"Trouble is, it allows one commercial distro, Red Hat, to dictate to everyone else, like it or not"

I'll re-iterate this, because it is true, whether you like it or not.

PrzemoF

Tillotson wrote: »

Redhat employs more engineers contributing more code to Linux projects than anyone else. What do you contribute apart from spewing venomous conspiracies on public forums?

I have quite a few patches in the kernel, gnome and other small projects. I'm trying to help everytime I see someone strugling with linux. And I don't want systemd because of a long list well discussed issues.

Are we down to personal trips instead of discussing systemd?

Tillotson

PrzemoF wrote: »

I have quite a few patches in the kernel, gnome and other small projects. I'm trying to help everytime I see someone strugling with linux. And I don't want systemd because of a long list well discussed issues.

Are we down to personal trips instead of discussing systemd?

Yeah, my comment was probably uncalled for.

However, I don't see any technical arguments against systemd here. Just bull**** about how it's a trojan horse designed by Redhat + Poettering to take over Linux destroy open-source.

I've used systemd since it first arrived in Arch and I use it every day in work on rhel7. See my above post for reasons I believe systemd is better that sys-v. It's a real improvement and it's available now.

I'd be interested in hearing about the technical issues you have with systemd.

limnam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Meh.
Been using it exclusively for over two years now, only noticeable change is much faster and more reliable booting and shutdown.

Considering the vast majority of *NIX users don't boot/shutdown very often. If that's the "only" noticeable change, it doesn't sound very beneficial.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ultimately, it's Free software and everything that depends on it is Free software, if you don't like it then nothing is stopping you from writing something better.

This is a pretty weak straw-man argument. We generally want to attract as many people as possible into open/free software. Not start spouting people should learn to fork a branch of a distro if they're not happy.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The stuff about how it's going to force proprietary software and open linux up to viruses is just guff. I've been using systemd for longer than some of the more voiciferous posters here have been using linux.

I think there has been a lot of hype about viruses, but you're introducing a single point of failure which vastly increases the attack surface for all the services depending on that SPOF.

The length of time you've been using systemd for brings nothing to the discussion.

Personally I'm still on the fence until I learn more about it, which can be difficult with the vast majority of commentators on both side of the fences banging a lot of empty barrels.

Grudaire

excollier wrote: »

"Trouble is, it allows one commercial distro, Red Hat, to dictate to everyone else, like it or not"

I'll re-iterate this, because it is true, whether you like it or not.

What is stopping forks of the systemd code if they do go down a bad direction though?

L.Jenkins

Part of the devuan mailing list and the amount of bítching going on without any work being done is unreal.

jimgoose

jimgoose

excollier wrote: »

..."Trouble is, it allows one commercial distro, Red Hat, to dictate to everyone else, like it or not"...

IBM are in cahoots with RedHat for a long time, and began the process of turning Linux into AIX for x86 with AIX 5L. All your nerd are belong to us!!

azzeretti

Tillotson wrote: »

Structured, binary log. Better/faster querying. What's easier `journalctl -p err -u sshd --since=09:00 --until=12:30` or an awk/sed + grep regex nightmare. Check-sums detect tampering.

This reason, is one reason why I won't like systemd. I don't like the notion of a binary log file. I DO like awk/sed/grep - they feel better to me, more "linux". I know that isn't tangible and sounds garbbage but I really don't see any need to change it.

Biggest advantage, for me anyway, and probably the most controversial is standardization. I'm sick of each distro re-inventing the wheel, badly. Standardize paths, standardize api's, standardize tools and let me get on with it.

I can see the benefits here, in some ways. But again, why distro-hop? Why not pick your distro an use it if you don't like the changes across?

The biggest concern I have is choice. If I decide I want to use a system without systemd then that will have an effect on the software I want to install. Gnome is a prime example with logind. It requires systemd to function, this (may) mean that I won't be able to run Gnome on my systemd-less system. It won't stop there either, what if this is the trend, to depend on systemd. I don't like that. Maybe it's time to start another Irish distro!?

Hotblack Desiato

limnam wrote: »

This is a pretty weak straw-man argument. We generally want to attract as many people as possible into open/free software. Not start spouting people should learn to fork a branch of a distro if they're not happy.

Given that there are so many distros out there though, it's not really necessary to set up your own just support one you like.
IF there is enough support out there then non-systemd distros will prosper, and I hope they do.

The length of time you've been using systemd for brings nothing to the discussion.

Me personally, no, but lots of people have been using this for a couple of years now and have had no problems, or at least nothing bad enough to want to make them switch back to systemv.

Tillotson

azzeretti wrote: »

This reason, is one reason why I won't like systemd. I don't like the notion of a binary log file. I DO like awk/sed/grep - they feel better to me, more "linux". I know that isn't tangible and sounds garbbage but I really don't see any need to change it.



I can see the benefits here, in some ways. But again, why distro-hop? Why not pick your distro an use it if you don't like the changes across?

The biggest concern I have is choice. If I decide I want to use a system without systemd then that will have an effect on the software I want to install. Gnome is a prime example with logind. It requires systemd to function, this (may) mean that I won't be able to run Gnome on my systemd-less system. It won't stop there either, what if this is the trend, to depend on systemd. I don't like that. Maybe it's time to start another Irish distro!?

You can always pipe the output of journalctl to whatever. You can also setup journald to forward to syslog.

It's not that I'm distro hopping, most of the time I don't get to choose what distro is installed on a particular server.

At this stage nearly all the major Linux distros have adopted systemd. I don't think it's fair to burden Gnome developers with maintaining workarounds and compatibility layers, especially for platforms which are more server orientated anyway. Honestly, I see systemd as providing low level services similar to how coreutils provides tools. But yeah, if you're that person running Gnome on your FreeBSD desktop, it sucks.

syklops

jimgoose wrote: »

Oh FFS, they'll kill each other over anything going back centuries. BSD vs. SYS-V. Emacs vs. vi. Gnome vs. KDE. tin vs. rn. I remember getting into a right temper back in 2007 or so because I suddenly had to start writing XML files in /var/svc/manifest/ on my old UltraSPARC boxes to start/stop stuff. :pac:

Whats your point?

I'm still annoyed whenever I find a config file I need to edit in XML.

jimgoose

syklops wrote: »

Whats your point?

I'm still annoyed whenever I find a config file I need to edit in XML.

My breakfast burrito is rapidly congealing. How 'bout you??

syklops

jimgoose wrote: »

My breakfast burrito is rapidly congealing. How 'bout you??