The technical aspect here is completely insignificant. All they did was remove a basic listener function that was already optional, used to communicate with systemd's socket activator without linking to libsystemd itself. And it seems only one Busybox daemon ever made use of it.<p>The political significance is quite high, and I have to say I feel that this move, though perhaps a bit childish, is a valid signal to express grievances with the absolutist attitudes of the systemd developers. Plus let's be honest here, they aren't the pinnacles of mature behavior either. I think this is the first time a major project has done a statement like this against systemd. I would expect more to follow their example.<p>I of course summarized my issues in "Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd architecture for real-world service management" [1] and hope to see systemd go the way of devfsd and HAL.<p>[1] <a href="http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/</a>
I really like systemd because all the controversy made me look towards FreeBSD, and this has really been a great experience. No offense, but I can't stop thinking about the Linux community as a screaming child with short attention span. The BSD community seems more like an old grey beard, sitting calmly in the corner solving problems in the best way possible. This may take some time but the result is often superior.
PID 1 should be boring. Tiny, simple and boring. Any software project that raises this much controversy should be looked at with a raised eyebrow.<p>A software project this large, complex, controversial and coupled that wants to be PID 1? Absolutely no way.
I have to make this comment with a throwaway as its related to my previous job. Leaving aside the technical issues the launch of systemd 'looks' very much like a playbook PR campaign designed to push through something unpopular.<p>The discrediting debates, labeling near abuse and mockery of opponents, appeals to authority and exaggerated consensus do not look accidental. This has all the markings of a sophisticated campaign.<p>For many this can be off putting but its also a wake up call on some naive ideas about how the world works. Money drives decisions, the cathedral and bazaar as a metaphor has no meaning when the bazaar has spawned a billon dollar cathedral in its midst, and like the failure of communism in practice this too could be anticipated. Money has its own agenda and always corrupts everything. And we all know this because its part of our historical record and common sense. And there is nothing we can do about that because in the real work words are meaningless. Individuals have zero power, groups have some power but its groups with money that hold the cards.<p>The Debian management tells users,not out of exasperation, or frustration but of arrogance that they essentially don't matter, and the only way they can have a voice is with code. This disrespect for users lies in contrast to a project that has none and thus the self awareness to realise it is meaningless without them. This new found arrogance sits uneasily with the ideals of the open source movement but anyone who draws the dots will realise its not an open source movement but a full fledged corporate movement with the thinnest veneer of ideology that is not up for 'management'.<p>For the next generation you cannot protect ideals if you enable and allow cathedrals to grow in your midst. For the current things do not automatically fix themselves, the awareness of the power of money to influence outcomes and how to firewall them, how to ensure co-existence, sustenance and growth, how to reward projects and developers and how to ensure you are not getting hijacked and sidelines by interested parties should be the 'community', and there is no such current organization in the ecosystem that's not tainted by corporatism and opportunism.
There's a lot of hate for systemd and there's also a lot of people ignoring valid criticisms and going so far as labeling those making the criticisms as haters. This does not bode well for reasonable discussion. It has become very political.<p>Whether systemd is a good thing or a bad thing depends ultimately on what you're trying to do and what sort of operating system you're using. For some people systemd is really helpful, for others it gets in the way and creates unnecessary complexity where it otherwise wouldn't exist.<p>I've been using systemd along with fleet on coreos, and it's fantastic for me but I personally wouldn't want systemd on my desktop. The problem is that it has been forced onto people left right and centre when it doesn't suit their needs. That essential reasonable debate never occurred and those that are forced to either swap distro or 'convert' to systemd get upset. If there was a reasonable debate people would still hate on systemd, but at least the reasons for using it would be more known and the criticisms atleast acknowledged.
has anyone used Fedora 23 with Gnome, Wayland and Systemd ? I see a lot of religious handwaving around systemd, but F23 shows you the future of Linux desktop.. and it is brilliant.<p>Right from network interfaces that dont change names when you swap hardware (powered by systemd) to making it damn easy to file crash bugs (using coredumpctl) to checking what services have failed "systemctl --failed" to a more secure graphical desktop (rootless gnome with systemd) - it makes for a better linux.<p>Deploying web-services on systemd is so much better - think supervisord, but much more stable and robust. Even docker machines using systemd is great (in fact it is a great way to explore systemd).
Wait, people are using Systemd on embedded Linux?
You go out of your way to replace the Linux userland with a single small binary, and possibly go through the trouble of using a small libc implementation, and then you install this mammoth called systemd.
Interesting to see that the commit linked here has been yanked from the repo.<p>For the curious, here is the original commit comment:<p>> remove systemd support<p>> systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world.<p>> Therefore there is no reason for the rest of the world to cooperate with them.<p>> Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com><p><a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fgit.busybox.net%2Fbusybox%2Fcommit%2F%3Fid%3Daccd9eeb719916da974584b33b1aeced5f3bb346&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fgit.busybox.net%2Fbusybox%2Fcommit%2F%3Fid%3Daccd9eeb719916da974584b33b1aeced5f3bb346" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...</a>
Interestingly, Busybox developers seem to have a lot of hate for sysv init.
<a href="http://busybox.net/~vda/init_vs_runsv.html" rel="nofollow">http://busybox.net/~vda/init_vs_runsv.html</a> "SysV init must die."
This comment thread seems to be the 2-minutes-hate for systemd, with mostly predictable results. But the <i>actual</i> news seems to be that Busybox removed the use of the systemd notify system which lets systemd know that the service has indeed started and it’s OK to start other processes which depend on it. This is no great thing – the <i>normal</i> and <i>traditional</i> Unix way of daemons is for a program to fork, where the fork continues to be the actual daemon, and the original process exits. Systemd can detect this exiting of the started process, and will take <i>that</i> as the signal that the daemon is ready, so there is no need for the notifying function in this case.