No I am fully aware that systemd targets Linux and OpenBSD is, well, not Linux. But seriously, what's the status of init in OpenBSD? Last time I used it (around 5.2 for some odd sparc servers that didn't support anything else apart from Solaris) it was still/etc/rc.d scripts, and no respawn if a service crashed etc.
If a Poettering-like asshole was detected anywhere near OpenBSD, they would be shot down like an aircraft flying over the White House without clearance.
For variable values of "improvements". Some people (usually ones with a lot of experience and insights) think that the makers of systemd do not understand how Unix works or how to do professional system administration and hence view systemd rightfully as a step backwards.
Unix is an evolving class of operating systems and they work the way we make them work. Sometimes we come up with new ideas that may or may not improve it. Almost no one agrees that Unix of the 90s was at perfection and that nothing would ever have to be changed again.
That there's no point in talking about "how Unix works" since Unix has never been consistent unless you're talking about some of the really old AT&T releases. Once there were multiple Unix vendors things started changing all the time. What we're seeing now in the Linux space is no different from what has always been the case.
The UNIX philosophy was always groups of simple tools that do one thing and do it well. You pipe them together and parse the data however you want. Systemd does the exact opposite of that. One monolithic service doing everything but poorly. None of these new ideas have undergone any real testing other than shipping the distro when they compile. You're beta testing this bullshit.
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
Here we go again.
Init is standard because it is the best and why change for the sake of change? Name one other OS that has switched away from init? 1. Solaris EMF (2008)... uh 2. MacOSX LaunchD(2006)... well I guess it is not really Unix 3. NetBSD (2008?)... hey wait a minute. It is still init... well modules in its place. You edit those. Hmmm different and not the traditional unix way 4. Ubuntu Upstart(2010?)... hey wait a minute pal! Ubuntu is cool and no way and you MR. GATES ARE A TROLL!! 5, Linux (SystemD):... Linux is the 1st OS to replace the all so popular Init. Why change??
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, SCO, Irix, and HP-UX are the only holdouts. Oh Sco is dead and Irix has been done for 10 years. HP-UX is on life support etc. Leaves just FreeBSD and OpenBSD left unmodified.
If Init is sooo freaking awesome why is everyone switching to event driven replacements?
Well if you feel having processes launch processes which launch processes to tens of thousands of freaking PIDs and +200 lines of if... fi scripts of every event which would spawn spawn another event to configure another event with over +3000 packages and probably over a dozen daemons running is a normal, unix way, right way to do something in 2015 then Init is perfect for you. Let's say you have a Macbook. It goes to sleep at your desk. You board a plane. You wake it open in a hotel room that evening. How would you program it to get on the network with init?
With an event driven system you do not have this problem which is why Apple invented launchedD it can do this automatically.
From what I read SystemD is modular and has separate components and follows the Unix philosophy more than Init. Is it any good? I don't know I am not a Unix administrator. But I am tired of seeing the hate and am intelligent enough to see why things are going the way they are. I am thinking of a scenario right now with an Apache or Ngnix box and with EMF on Solaris or SystemD I can write some event scripts in case a network connection goes down or what if it is hacked? That is some cool stuff with automation I can accomplish.
True the neckbeards running XP still probably have 20 years of scripts written for the old way described above who as a result of their effort who are fuming mad at the lost time and do not want to change but whatever. Actually I do not care about OpenBSD using the old way as OpenBSD tends to be for specific purposes with minimal configurations and changes running so the problems above are less problematic.
You are missing what is going on here: Making the boxes more "friendly" to novices and at the same time throwing out reliability, simplicity and security. Of course most users like that as most users do not have much of a clue how their box works. But when a distro like Debian (which is still regarded as the "rock solid thing for the server", but probably not much longer) does it, then this massive dumbing down and all its drawbacks start to affect people that actually have a clue and that is where the oppo
You may have read that, but reality is shit like systemd hanging indefinitely waiting to detect a wireless mouse dongle (noticed it was hung booting and rebooted after five hours, then pulled the dongle and rebooted again). The parallel idea didn't happen. The rage is due to it being perpetually a half finished sack of shit expanding into other areas before the existing ones are fixed. It's more rage at poor implementation than the idea itself.
From what I read SystemD is modular and has separate components and follows the Unix philosophy more than Init.,
That's not what's meant by the unix philosophy. None of those components is independent of systemd, they're all part of it. You can't for example swap out syslog for jounrnald on a Gentoo machine running OpenRC. This is not like having GNU AWK and MAWK installed and switching one for the other.
The systemd modules are just that, modules. Like the kernel. They're not separate components which do thi
This bad? That is staggering. I think the following applies pretty well to the systemd team:
"Someone who considers himself too important for small jobs is often too small for important jobs" -- Jaques Tati
Solid engineering requires attention to detail. Rushing off to break even more other functionality before your replacement stuff works well is a sure recipe for disaster. Incidentally, while I do not have "rage" for them (they are far too unimportant to me), the defects of the idea itself ma
One thing the world has been plagued with is people who can't write init scripts for crap. Redhat was particularly bad and ubuntu was only a little better. Arch, prior to switching had rather short, simple RC scripts, certainly nothing like you describe. Oh and it booted faster with it's RC scripts than systemD, so there's that too.
Ah, yes. I have observed that too. Funny thing is the ones I wrote myself never gave me any trouble later. Of course, moving to systemd to fix that is about the worst thing they could have done. Hiding complexity does not make it go away, it just makes it so much worse when something breaks. Genuine simplicity can only be replaced by genuine simplicity and systemd has nothing of that.
A penny saved is a penny to squander.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Does it have systemd? (Score:0)
No I am fully aware that systemd targets Linux and OpenBSD is, well, not Linux. But seriously, what's the status of init in OpenBSD? Last time I used it (around 5.2 for some odd sparc servers that didn't support anything else apart from Solaris) it was still /etc/rc.d scripts, and no respawn if a service crashed etc.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
No, it doesn't have systemd.
If a Poettering-like asshole was detected anywhere near OpenBSD, they would be shot down like an aircraft flying over the White House without clearance.
Re: (Score:-1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For variable values of "improvements". Some people (usually ones with a lot of experience and insights) think that the makers of systemd do not understand how Unix works or how to do professional system administration and hence view systemd rightfully as a step backwards.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Your point?
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
The UNIX philosophy was always groups of simple tools that do one thing and do it well. You pipe them together and parse the data however you want. Systemd does the exact opposite of that. One monolithic service doing everything but poorly. None of these new ideas have undergone any real testing other than shipping the distro when they compile. You're beta testing this bullshit.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
Re:Does it have systemd? (Score:2)
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
Here we go again.
Init is standard because it is the best and why change for the sake of change? Name one other OS that has switched away from init? ... uh ... hey wait a minute. It is still init ... well modules in its place. You edit those. Hmmm different and not the traditional unix way ... hey wait a minute pal! Ubuntu is cool and no way and you MR. GATES ARE A TROLL!! ... Linux is the 1st OS to replace the all so popular Init. Why change??
1. Solaris EMF (2008)
2. MacOSX LaunchD(2006)... well I guess it is not really Unix
3. NetBSD (2008?)
4. Ubuntu Upstart(2010?)
5, Linux (SystemD):
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, SCO, Irix, and HP-UX are the only holdouts. Oh Sco is dead and Irix has been done for 10 years. HP-UX is on life support etc. Leaves just FreeBSD and OpenBSD left unmodified.
If Init is sooo freaking awesome why is everyone switching to event driven replacements?
Well if you feel having processes launch processes which launch processes to tens of thousands of freaking PIDs and +200 lines of if ... fi scripts of every event which would spawn spawn another event to configure another event with over +3000 packages and probably over a dozen daemons running is a normal, unix way, right way to do something in 2015 then Init is perfect for you. Let's say you have a Macbook. It goes to sleep at your desk. You board a plane. You wake it open in a hotel room that evening. How would you program it to get on the network with init?
With an event driven system you do not have this problem which is why Apple invented launchedD it can do this automatically.
From what I read SystemD is modular and has separate components and follows the Unix philosophy more than Init. Is it any good? I don't know I am not a Unix administrator. But I am tired of seeing the hate and am intelligent enough to see why things are going the way they are. I am thinking of a scenario right now with an Apache or Ngnix box and with EMF on Solaris or SystemD I can write some event scripts in case a network connection goes down or what if it is hacked? That is some cool stuff with automation I can accomplish.
True the neckbeards running XP still probably have 20 years of scripts written for the old way described above who as a result of their effort who are fuming mad at the lost time and do not want to change but whatever. Actually I do not care about OpenBSD using the old way as OpenBSD tends to be for specific purposes with minimal configurations and changes running so the problems above are less problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing what is going on here: Making the boxes more "friendly" to novices and at the same time throwing out reliability, simplicity and security. Of course most users like that as most users do not have much of a clue how their box works. But when a distro like Debian (which is still regarded as the "rock solid thing for the server", but probably not much longer) does it, then this massive dumbing down and all its drawbacks start to affect people that actually have a clue and that is where the oppo
Re: (Score:2)
The rage is due to it being perpetually a half finished sack of shit expanding into other areas before the existing ones are fixed. It's more rage at poor implementation than the idea itself.
Re: (Score:1)
From what I read SystemD is modular and has separate components and follows the Unix philosophy more than Init.,
That's not what's meant by the unix philosophy. None of those components is independent of systemd, they're all part of it. You can't for example swap out syslog for jounrnald on a Gentoo machine running OpenRC. This is not like having GNU AWK and MAWK installed and switching one for the other.
The systemd modules are just that, modules. Like the kernel. They're not separate components which do thi
Re: (Score:2)
This bad? That is staggering. I think the following applies pretty well to the systemd team:
"Someone who considers himself too important for small jobs is often too small for important jobs" -- Jaques Tati
Solid engineering requires attention to detail. Rushing off to break even more other functionality before your replacement stuff works well is a sure recipe for disaster. Incidentally, while I do not have "rage" for them (they are far too unimportant to me), the defects of the idea itself ma
Re: (Score:2)
One thing the world has been plagued with is people who can't write init scripts for crap. Redhat was particularly bad and ubuntu was only a little better. Arch, prior to switching had rather short, simple RC scripts, certainly nothing like you describe. Oh and it booted faster with it's RC scripts than systemD, so there's that too.
Ah, yes. I have observed that too. Funny thing is the ones I wrote myself never gave me any trouble later. Of course, moving to systemd to fix that is about the worst thing they could have done. Hiding complexity does not make it go away, it just makes it so much worse when something breaks. Genuine simplicity can only be replaced by genuine simplicity and systemd has nothing of that.