Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along

98 点作者 uselessdguy超过 10 年前

13 条评论

fidotron超过 10 年前

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out in the long run, though the short term is utterly depressing. My hunch is Lennart will be vindicated, on the basis that systemd as it exists right now is not right, but it can be evolved into something much better, and while that may not have occurred to other projects here the stakes are enormous. There is a definite strand to the resistance that any change to something so fundamental must be resisted.The bigger side argument about the Unix philosophy is also intriguing. Rob Pike claimed it was dead and Perl delivered the eulogy, which I can half agree with. The problem is shell scripting is archaic nonsense, but our script languages can't do what you can do in shell scripts well enough. The idea of a Unix where you get rid of bash/csh/whatever and just run a lua/python/ruby prompt and have your apps implemented largely in that same language (with shell commands being replaced by functions) may make some people squirm, but would make a lot of sense for reducing the overall learning curve.

评论 #8488549 未加载

评论 #8489166 未加载

评论 #8488670 未加载

评论 #8488537 未加载

评论 #8489164 未加载

pessimizer超过 10 年前

I have none of these objections to systemd. My objection is that it's both pervasive and unauditable. I can accept one or the other.I don't have to rely on 'many eyes' to tell me what's going on with init scripts, I can just look. systemd is sprawling, has no particular philosophy that I can notice, and all of its internal systems are heavily interconnected; this leads me to expect that very few people will be auditing the code that don't work for redhat, because very few will understand it. I expect it to increase the vulnerability of the entire system to accidental or intentionally inserted bugs by an order of magnitude. Therefore, I'd like to see it in the wild for 5 or so years before personally using it - but it looks as if to continue using many linux applications I have to switch to it while it is being written.I don't get the point (other than cgroups and boot times), I don't get the hurry, and I don't get the animosity to alternate and legacy init systems, and to alternate Unices.

评论 #8488914 未加载

FreakyT超过 10 年前

Interesting discussion! I would have liked it if the author had provided some background information (for the uninitiated) about some of the other related issues mentioned. For example, what was meant by "the horrors of PulseAudio", "the udev debacle", and why was HAL bad?I realize that I could probably find out "bad things about HAL" via internet searching, but it would be more interesting to see the author's take on the issues in the context of the article.

评论 #8488434 未加载

评论 #8489377 未加载

nanoscopic超过 10 年前

That was a very long and detailed explanation of the sides of the argument.It misses one huge thing: Consistency.The elephant in the room is that most people who dislike systemd simply dislike it because they learned and used init.d scripts, runlevels, and chkconfig, and that is the extent of their understanding.The main hatred for systemd is coming from people simply being resistant to change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.I like systemd for it's technical merits. I personally would prefer to use a distribution like CentOS in a mode where there is no systemd, simply because I like simplicity and systemd is more confusing to me.What I foresee happening: people who don't like systemd are going to go try other distributions that don't use it, and may abandon the ones that do because it is too much trouble to run them without it.The statement that it will lead to divide between graphical linux users and minimalists is likely very true. Runlevels may be simplistic and outdated, but they are easy to remember.

评论 #8489028 未加载

评论 #8489009 未加载

评论 #8489050 未加载

Aardwolf超过 10 年前

I think most of it is ok, such as the init system, except the logging. Why did they have to touch logging, and change everything about it, and put it in a non-text format...

hello_there超过 10 年前

What I really dislike about these debates about systemd is that usually nobody mentions the alternatives. From reading the debate I get the impression that both sysvinit and systemd have major problems, but I'm never presented with a solution. So if I'm going to be against sysvinit as well as systemd, then what should i be supporting?

评论 #8488924 未加载

评论 #8489080 未加载

评论 #8489494 未加载

评论 #8489676 未加载

floatboth超过 10 年前

The referenced article that criticizes both SysV and BSD inits is from 2002. BSD systems have had separate scripts in a folder (rc.d) since, like, forever. And "[package installation] needs to edit one of the existing boot scripts" is the only criticism there.There might be more current issues, but I believe it's good enough. For example, BSD init doesn't have super web scale auto restarting and monitoring and log routing. Well... it doesn't need to. Just use it to launch supervisord or something. Also, it's not super fast because it uses the shell. Again, it doesn't need to be. It's fast enough for general purpose servers and desktops. For special cases like containers and whatnot you need special tools.

评论 #8506460 未加载

jude-超过 10 年前

Thank you for taking the time to write this up! (the link is also appreciated :)I think a lot of the rage and loathing regarding systemd is due to its coupling to the rest of the OS. I think a lot of !systemd users were quiet on this initially (and today even) since it's not hard to avoid systemd if you're not running a full-fledged desktop environment. I think it's the fear that this will change in the near-future that has prompted the backlash we're seeing now.I hope that Debian's new init system coupling GR will address this, both for itself and for its derivative distros. If the rest of the OS does not care about whether or not it's systemd managing the daemons or something else, then everyone wins.

hk__2超过 10 年前

Could someone ELI5 this pro-systemd/anti-systemd thing?

评论 #8488550 未加载

评论 #8489402 未加载

评论 #8488650 未加载

评论 #8488573 未加载

erhardm超过 10 年前

I see the whole pro/anti systemd as a philosophical debate. Basically each part is arguing where the complexity should be in the system and how dense it should be distributed. I think we need two competing init systems to really know maybe in 5-10 years what the best trade-offs are. A modern sys V init and systemd.

评论 #8488516 未加载

评论 #8488472 未加载

wmf超过 10 年前

If systemd is bad for servers, why did RHEL[1] and CoreOS adopt it? Are we to believe that these companies work against themselves?[1] AFAIK 90% of Red Hat's revenue is from servers, not desktops.

评论 #8489547 未加载

评论 #8489146 未加载

评论 #8488634 未加载

burtonator超过 10 年前

emacs is the one true editor...same thing all over again :-P

ck2超过 10 年前

I don't want anything bad to happen to Lennart, I just want him to take his football and go home.Then suddenly init.d will look very open and friendly again.Maybe the same thing can happen to grub2 and I wouldn't mind going back to good old grub.conf

评论 #8488644 未加载