This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up, brainwashed sheeple!
<https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:
This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up,
brainwashed sheeple!
<https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.
I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.
On 08/10/2024 11:39, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up, >>> brainwashed sheeple!
<https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.
I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.
there to stroke the ego of programmers.
But as with so many other pieces of code designed to be a Swiss army
knife when all you wanted was a toothpick (Postscript, X windows spring
to mind and indeed the socket library which was originally designed to support many other protocols than TCP/IP) if people keep fixing the bugs
in the bits most used and documenting it far more than its designer
bothered, it can eventually be made to work well *enough* for the
limited uses to which it ends up being put...of course it will be
bloated with all the features that no one ever uses, until a hacker
discovers a way to break into systems using it...
Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
source or go home is my take, but I digress).
I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
there to stroke the ego of programmers.
Phillip Frabott wrote:
Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
There was Upstart, but it's been dead for a decade ...
I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've never been burned by it.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 15:15:11 -0400, Phillip Frabott wrote:
I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've never been burned by it.
Phillip Frabott <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
There are lots of 'em. OpenRC is another common default for
distros.
Here's a list, but not complete: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems
Also Busybox has a clone of SysV init, and OpenWrt has their own
"procd" system.
Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
source or go home is my take, but I digress).
Well I started taking Systemd with the distros, then I had to
actually change something with it and experienced the appalling
design, then I made the effort to switch everything back to SysVinit
(I found Devuan, with its separate package repos, far more reliable
than AntiX as a Systemd-free version of Debian). My reasons had
already been stated, and argued against, by others at that point.
No reason for me to go into them now.
I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
Systemd is an obscenely complicated way to do an init system, but
there's nothing about it that needs to be complicated. It does a
simple job at heart and new alternatives aren't hard to make (or
find).
I'm not going to disagree. Systemd is complicated compared to InitV.
That being says, it always comes down to what people like and what works
for them.
On 2024-10-09, Phillip Frabott <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm not going to disagree. Systemd is complicated compared to InitV.
That being says, it always comes down to what people like and what works
for them.
The old stuff that we remember from our youth is easy for us; to the
degree that we remember what we did 40 years ago, we don't need to read
the man pages.
But redhat has funding from and obligations to groups that run large datacenters that need to be managed from control desks based on
parameterized templates, and to support these needs, they built
something that works for that crowd.
I just wish they had some simple articles that I could find that makes
it easier for me to find where thy put the things I need to edit to make
my SMALL and SIMPLE system to work in MY environment.
Where is the per-network-device data that used to be in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts now? I know I am supposed to use network-manager, but how does it play with ifconfig and "ip addr" and
"ip route"? The amount of documentation i need to read to do simple
things like making sure that my default route is correct on bootup is daunting. So instead I put a startup file in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or
the root crontab "@reboot", even though I am sure there is a systemd
service definition I am supposed to make a simple edit to.
On 8 Oct 2024 20:38:30 GMT, rbowman wrote:
I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've
never been burned by it.
systemd-haters are like the anti-fluoridationists of the open-source
world.
Phillip Frabott <[email protected]> writes:
Systemd is complicated compared to
InitV.
In the most important way, systemd is way more simple than InitV.
With systemd, each service has one .service file which is sufficient to start, monitor, restart, and stop that service.
Compare that with InitV which has a shell script for each service and a forest of soft links for starting and stopping the service.
A lot of times the anti-systemd crowd say that Systemd violates the Unix philosophy.
I just wish they had some simple articles that I could find that makes
it easier for me to find where thy put the things I need to edit to make
my SMALL and SIMPLE system to work in MY environment.
Where is the per-network-device data that used to be in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts now? I know I am supposed to use network-manager, but how does it play with ifconfig and "ip addr" and
"ip route"?
... even though I am sure there is a systemd service
definition I am supposed to make a simple edit to.
Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
Phillip Frabott <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
Yes, but since the init system is tied so deeply into the
distribution, it might not be a very good idea to change the init
system of the distribution you have chosen. I mean, you CAN for
example use Debian with other init systems (I think that openrc is
packaged, and sysvinit is still available), BUT you'll have to write
the code / configuration to start your services yourself.
You don't want that.
Greetings
Marc
But redhat has funding from and obligations to groups that run large >datacenters that need to be managed from control desks based on
parameterized templates, and to support these needs, they built
something that works for that crowd.
Where is the per-network-device data that used to be in >/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts now? I know I am supposed to use >network-manager, but how does it play with ifconfig and "ip addr" and
"ip route"?
On 10/8/2024 06:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/10/2024 11:39, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up, >>>> brainwashed sheeple!
<https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.
I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.
there to stroke the ego of programmers.
But as with so many other pieces of code designed to be a Swiss army
knife when all you wanted was a toothpick (Postscript, X windows
spring to mind and indeed the socket library which was originally
designed to support many other protocols than TCP/IP) if people keep
fixing the bugs in the bits most used and documenting it far more than
its designer bothered, it can eventually be made to work well *enough*
for the limited uses to which it ends up being put...of course it will
be bloated with all the features that no one ever uses, until a hacker
discovers a way to break into systems using it...
Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV? For me, I always
feel that it's better to have 2 or more 'somethings' then one
'something'. If you only have 1 'something' then you tend to isolate
yourself into believing something is better then anything else. I've
talked to Systemd guys and I've talked to InitV guys and they both have
pros and cons for each of these two systems. At the end of the day it's
the system administrator that has to decide which of the two is best for their deployment(s). In the work environment I was in, we had many
systems, some using InitV and others using Systemd. When I asked about
it, they (the administrators) were able to properly articulate why InitV
was chosen for 'these systems' while Systemd was chosen for 'those
systems'. The arguments were pretty well thought out. So clearly InitV
is lacking in certain environments, and Systemd is bad in others. So to
me, having choices is a good thing.
Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
source or go home is my take, but I digress).
I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
On 8 Oct 2024 20:38:30 GMT, rbowman wrote:
I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've
never been burned by it.
systemd-haters are like the anti-fluoridationists of the open-source
world.
Lars Poulsen <[email protected]> wrote:
But redhat has funding from and obligations to groups that run large >>datacenters that need to be managed from control desks based on >>parameterized templates, and to support these needs, they built
something that works for that crowd.
And still those server people complain that systemd feels more like
its geared for desktop machines. Noone cares how long it takes to boot
a server,
and many server jockeys would love the possibility to turn
off the parallelism of systemd when booting (for reproducibility,
sacrificing speed).
Marc Haber <[email protected]> writes:
Lars Poulsen <[email protected]> wrote:
But redhat has funding from and obligations to groups that run large
datacenters that need to be managed from control desks based on
parameterized templates, and to support these needs, they built
something that works for that crowd.
And still those server people complain that systemd feels more like
its geared for desktop machines. Noone cares how long it takes to boot
a server,
??? the end users of whatever service the server is providing are likely
to care. Certainly if one of our dev servers (e.g. git, wiki, bug
tracker) has to be rebooted in the middle of the the day[1] then work
will gradually grind to a halt until it’s back.
[1] avoided if possible of course, but sometimes shit happens.
and many server jockeys would love the possibility to turn
off the parallelism of systemd when booting (for reproducibility,
sacrificing speed).
On 2024-10-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On 8 Oct 2024 20:38:30 GMT, rbowman wrote:
I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've >>> never been burned by it.
systemd-haters are like the anti-fluoridationists of the open-source
world.
Is this going the Wayland route, where anyone complaining that there is something they can't do in Wayland, or that specific X11 features are required for their workflow, is immediatelly met with such "you're anti-fluoridation!" attacks?
Phillip Frabott wrote:This. Familiarity with the old tends to make us dislike the new, my old knowledge was applicable across xenix, OSF/1, HPUX, AIX, multiple linux flavours
I'm not going to disagree. Systemd is complicated compared to InitV.That being says, it always comes down to what people like and what works
for them.
The old stuff that we remember from our youth is easy for us; to the
degree that we remember what we did 40 years ago, we don't need to read
the man pages.
Lately its being ramped up rather massively. Even in the field of software engineering from what one hears.
Marxism and its descendants have always used emotion rather than reason to cancel those they felt were a danger.
can I please have my old fashioned docking station that directly
attaches to the system bus back? None of my two USB-C Thinkpads (one
with Linux, one with Windows) work reliably with the external
monitors via the USB-C dock.
I see pulse audio has been superseded...
As someone who doesn't use a distro,
Familiarity with the old tends to make us dislike the new, my old
knowledge was applicable across xenix, OSF/1, HPUX, AIX, multiple linux flavours
Is this going the Wayland route, where anyone complaining that there is something they can't do in Wayland ...
Log files that need a program to list them? Why?
New code that breaks existing startup scripts in new and exciting
ways ...
But there is a slew of hate being sponsored by politicians and political activists - mainly, but not exclusively, from the Left...
And still those server people complain that systemd feels more like its geared for desktop machines. Noone cares how long it takes to boot a
server, and many server jockeys would love the possibility to turn off
the parallelism of systemd when booting (for reproducibility,
sacrificing speed).
On 09/10/2024 11:36, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Marc Haber <[email protected]> writes:
and many server jockeys would love the possibility to turn
off the parallelism of systemd when booting (for reproducibility,
sacrificing speed).
What I dislike mainly is that its code for an ego trip. Log files that
need a program to list them?
Why?
Now Poettering has fucked off the long man years of fixing his shit
begins.
I see pulse audio has been superseded...
Nonetheless, people should always have options.
On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 07:53:18 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
And still those server people complain that systemd feels more like its
geared for desktop machines. Noone cares how long it takes to boot a
server, and many server jockeys would love the possibility to turn off
the parallelism of systemd when booting (for reproducibility,
sacrificing speed).
I can’t see any option for doing that globally, but you could use drop-in >config files to temorarily force ordering on particular services that
might be giving you trouble, so you can properly debug their dependencies. >For example, I soon learned the difference between >“Requires=mysql.service” and “After=mysql.service”, and why, in my case, I
needed both ...
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> writes:
On 09/10/2024 11:36, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Marc Haber <[email protected]> writes:
and many server jockeys would love the possibility to turn
off the parallelism of systemd when booting (for reproducibility,
sacrificing speed).
What I dislike mainly is that its code for an ego trip. Log files that
need a program to list them?
You always used a program to read log files, it was just tail or less
rather than journalctl.
Why?
Much same reasons that databases aren’t text files. If you don’t like it >you can have the logs directed to traditional text files (this was the >default configuration in Debian for a while).
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 02:07:14 -0400, Phillip Frabott wrote:
Nonetheless, people should always have options.
And they do. This is Open Source: it’s essentially impossible to take >options away from people.
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lately its being ramped up rather massively. Even in the field of
software engineering from what one hears.
Marxism and its descendants have always used emotion rather than
reason to cancel those they felt were a danger.
This is the truth. But the hard fact of life is that you (and I) have to
be the ones who makes change possible, instead of complaining and
enduring.
I left corporate IT and started my own business, becaise corporate IT
became waaay too woke and leftist.
I also benefit enormously, because in my company you can be a nazi or a socialist or a libertarian, I couldn't care less as long as you do your
job and make the customers happy.
Phillip Frabott <[email protected]> wrote:
As someone who doesn't use a distro,
You obviously have way too much time on your hands.
./configure --prefix=**** --disable-static --what-ever-else; make;make test; make install
And I must admit that it is already taking me years to get rid of less
for log inspection.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 167:03:07 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,811 |