- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Systemd fallout: Joey Hess quits Debian project
|
|
|
Comments (73)
If systemd has been adopted, how bad can it be?
51 earlier comments in the full thread.
Is it just me or has the line break in here gotten borked?
It's not you. I first noticed it about the time of Ridcully's Nov 09, 2014 post.
What's causing it is anybody's guess.
What's causing it is anybody's guess.
It ain't me......well, not deliberately anyway......I wouldn't know where to start.
"The objections to systemd are mostly not about its merits as an init system. They are mostly about its extension to other areas which has lead to odd dependencies on systemd that other init systems have always managed to avoid. It's great that systemd takes advantage of Linux features to create a more robust initialization. It's not great that it attempts to lock out all competing initialization schemes by extending into places it doesn't belong. You may think it makes sense to integrate all these systems together, but 40 years of Unix history seem to indicate otherwise."
This statement by CFWhitman above must be the most spot-on comment I've ever read in the long systemd debate. +1 on that.
This statement by CFWhitman above must be the most spot-on comment I've ever read in the long systemd debate. +1 on that.
> ...hey, you should have to compile everything from source, it wasn't proper to have things so easy.
You say that as if it's not a reasonable option. Gentoo and (to a lesser extent) Slackware would disagree with you.
> I rest my case. Permanently.
Promises, promises.
You say that as if it's not a reasonable option. Gentoo and (to a lesser extent) Slackware would disagree with you.
> I rest my case. Permanently.
Promises, promises.
>extension to other areas
This does not prevent one from using dhcp, cron, syslog-ng, NetworkManager, pm-utils...
Also, if other libraries like GNOME, GIMP and what else link to systemd, to query said functionality/feature/property's status, we can't blame systemd for that, it's the choice of those library maintainers.
The one thing I really don't like about systemd is the binary logging. Next is compelling reboot if systemd is updated, although I don't know if sysvinit update meant a mandatory reboot.
On the other hand, sysadmins would appreciate that on any distro they deal with, there's a common denominator, every where they'll find systemctl for example, instead of distro specific utilities to manage services.
This does not prevent one from using dhcp, cron, syslog-ng, NetworkManager, pm-utils...
Also, if other libraries like GNOME, GIMP and what else link to systemd, to query said functionality/feature/property's status, we can't blame systemd for that, it's the choice of those library maintainers.
The one thing I really don't like about systemd is the binary logging. Next is compelling reboot if systemd is updated, although I don't know if sysvinit update meant a mandatory reboot.
On the other hand, sysadmins would appreciate that on any distro they deal with, there's a common denominator, every where they'll find systemctl for example, instead of distro specific utilities to manage services.
@750, Page width problems like this are caused by over-length URLs and other inclusions that statically set the text window width, which then gets over-written by the right-hand margin.
It happens all the time, when people include long URLs, graphics, and other things that cannot be wrapped.
It happens all the time, when people include long URLs, graphics, and other things that cannot be wrapped.
Quoting:"The objections to systemd are mostly not about its merits as an init system. They are mostly about its extension to other areas which has lead to odd dependencies on systemd that other init systems have always managed to avoid. It's great that systemd takes advantage of Linux features to create a more robust initialization. It's not great that it attempts to lock out all competing initialization schemes by extending into places it doesn't belong. You may think it makes sense to integrate all these systems together, but 40 years of Unix history seem to indicate otherwise."
This statement by CFWhitman above must be the most spot-on comment I've ever read in the long systemd debate. +1 on that.
Also, do refer to similar "spot-on" comments within the long LXer thread on systemd, 'Systemd is like a cancer metast[asi]zing all over Linux', found at http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/35620/.
@jdixon compiling from source is also what allows Gobolinux to exist (tho it does have the option of pre-compiled packages as well).
Edmund Burke wrote:Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Henry Spencer wrote:Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> ...compiling from source is also what allows Gobolinux to exist
There are a number of source based distributions and distributions which allow or encourage compiling from source. I only mentioned the two I knew the most about. A complete list of them would be useful for those looking for a systemd exit strategy though.
There are a number of source based distributions and distributions which allow or encourage compiling from source. I only mentioned the two I knew the most about. A complete list of them would be useful for those looking for a systemd exit strategy though.
nmset wrote:This does not prevent one from using dhcp, cron, syslog-ng, NetworkManager, pm-utils...
Perhaps, but one is still required to use systemd.
nmset wrote:Also, if other libraries like GNOME, GIMP and what else link to systemd, to query said functionality/feature/property's status, we can't blame systemd for that, it's the choice of those library maintainers.
We most certainly CAN blame systemd! -- It is the systemd devs who push for such unnecessary upstream dependencies!
Here's Lennart himself in bed with the Gnome devs, cooing for Gnome dependency on systemd.
nmset wrote:The one thing I really don't like about systemd is the binary logging.
Oh, there are a lot more things not to like about systemd!
nmset wrote:On the other hand, sysadmins would appreciate that on any distro they deal with, there's a common denominator, every where they'll find systemctl for example, instead of distro specific utilities to manage services.
On the contrary, it is the sysadmins who most fervently oppose systemd on Debian. Only systemd supporters want such forced "universality."
@tuppp, Federico's reply to Lennart's posting has a telling insult near the end. It pretty well sums up devs' attitudes towards the consumers of their code (users & admins).
I've been watching this and a previous thread. There seems to be very, very widespread condemnation of systemd....apart from the RedHat coterie of course. So, my next questions are: What is everybody going to do about it ? Can anything be done about it ? The code appears to fly in the face of accepted Unix/Linux practice and Joey's departure seems to spell out his concerns. Short of waving placards in the street at RedHat, what can be done about this unhealthy bit of code ?
@Ridcully:
You can have my Slackware when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Or when PatV switches to systemd.
You can have my Slackware when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Or when PatV switches to systemd.
@gus3.....unfair......foul.......send 'im off ref......Would you KINDLY stop making me laugh when I am trying to be serious. LOL . Anyway, well said gus3......although I have never used Slackware......wouldn't know where to start. Looks like I'd better keep this installation of openSUSE 11.4 running for as long as I can.
> What is everybody going to do about it ? Can anything be done about it ?
At the moment it looks to me like about all you can do is use a source based distro, use Slackware and let Patrick now that switching to systemd isn't what you want, or switch to one of the BSD's. If Debian does fork, that's also an option. I guess you could also just keep using your current non-systemd based distribution until it's no longer safe to do so, of course.
At the moment it looks to me like about all you can do is use a source based distro, use Slackware and let Patrick now that switching to systemd isn't what you want, or switch to one of the BSD's. If Debian does fork, that's also an option. I guess you could also just keep using your current non-systemd based distribution until it's no longer safe to do so, of course.
> ...although I have never used Slackware...
Come on in, the water's fine. :)
Come on in, the water's fine. :)
Quoting: The code appears to fly in the face of accepted Unix/Linux practice and Joey's departure seems to spell out his concerns.
I finally read the original article, Joey's farewell post, and checked out his blog. No where in there could I detect any dislike of systemd itself. Quite the contrary, he seemed to have a positive comment about the timers aspect per his blog post.
Maybe I am missing something here, but perhaps it is just the heated discussions as jezuch suggested in an earlier post.
If you'd like to try out Slackware, but are afraid that manual dependency management will be a pain, then you might try Salix or one of the other Slackware derivatives. The only thing I really miss when using a Slackware derivative is the selection of pre-packaged software found in a Debian based distribution thanks to extensive repositories and the commonness of downloadable deb files. However, if you actually want to compile software, Slackware has about the most predictable and standard environment in which to do so.
I believe that Joey Hess quit Debian because he felt that the decision to go to systemd had already been made and the way the organization is set up is allowing that decision to be undermined and put to another vote. In other words, if anything, Mr. Hess is for systemd and doesn't like that the decision may not be completely settled at this point. How much his being for or against systemd is affecting his perception of shortcomings in the organization is up for debate, but according to him he's quitting because of Debian politics and not because systemd will or will not be used.
I believe that Joey Hess quit Debian because he felt that the decision to go to systemd had already been made and the way the organization is set up is allowing that decision to be undermined and put to another vote. In other words, if anything, Mr. Hess is for systemd and doesn't like that the decision may not be completely settled at this point. How much his being for or against systemd is affecting his perception of shortcomings in the organization is up for debate, but according to him he's quitting because of Debian politics and not because systemd will or will not be used.
A Debian fork revisited?
Calls for one or more Debian forks came last month at such websites as Roll up your sleeves, we may need to fork Debian and Another protest against systemd: debianfork.org.
Furthermore, there certainly has been fertile speculation as expressed in such pieces as Pushback against systemd in Debian gathers steam that either such a fork will occur or else there will be a revision of Debian's general resolution (GR) to the effect that Debian packages will not be allowed to depend on a single init system.
Are these calls for at least one non-systemd Debian fork -- and Hess's quitting the Debian project -- solely just handwaving and posturing for the membership's init system reconsideration and GR vote on November 18th ??
Furthermore, there certainly has been fertile speculation as expressed in such pieces as Pushback against systemd in Debian gathers steam that either such a fork will occur or else there will be a revision of Debian's general resolution (GR) to the effect that Debian packages will not be allowed to depend on a single init system.
Are these calls for at least one non-systemd Debian fork -- and Hess's quitting the Debian project -- solely just handwaving and posturing for the membership's init system reconsideration and GR vote on November 18th ??
I don't think it's just handwaving. The fact remains that reproducing Debian is not a trivial task.
Even a complete break is going to have to use systemd to some extent because of the dependencies that the lemmings are rushing into.
Even a complete break is going to have to use systemd to some extent because of the dependencies that the lemmings are rushing into.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post