Systemd

Systemd I'm not a technical expert however what is the problem with systemd?

Can someone give one valid concern?

Or even explain the problem?
What are OS's supposed to use to start themselves?
Is systemd nothing more then a script that has a list of starting crap in a OS?
What are the alternatives to this?

Also i have to agree that there needs to be a separation between the server and desktop OS's.

All I see is nonsensical hysteria like:

>systemd is turning Linux into what people who left Windows for Linux many years ago had been escaping in the first place
This is ridiculous beyond help, I left windows because:
1) The OS actively and openly spies on you
2) I have no choice over the GUI

See that there is nothing about stability or
>YOU can not HAX my uber haXXXor OS!
if you unironically believe that GNU/Linux is unhackable or has no errors you are delusional beyond help.

Here is the truth you HAXXxor OS has multiple secret attack vectors and other shell shock like exploits in them. If you are running bash or any shell your OS is compromised.

Here is how its done:
>Be government
>Have millions of dollars
>Want to be able to hack every computer
>Threaten MS into writing exploits into Windows
>Victory
>In the GPL world
>hire some super programer that wins the obscure C++ competition
>make him write in code for some part of the GNU/Linux OS
>Make him write in one obscure line that no one will notice however it will trigger some buffer overflow or some shit like shell shock
>Have this code for years and no one can detect it
>Be happy
>After years of using this exploit people find out
>Your programer publicly says
>Upss my bad, made a mistake there
>Everyone believe him
>Things are the same
>More exploits are written
>You simply don't know about them

Stop with the
>Linux is unhackable/9999% Secure
MEME

Other urls found in this thread:

bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825394
worldstandards.eu/electricity/plugs-and-sockets/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_electricity_by_country
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

it was your typical mass distro migration that atypically became a shitty meme

same little gay psuedo outrage tantrum happened for grub2, pulseaudio, moving from gnome2 to gnome3, any time a major distro changes its default DE. Linux users consistently try to convert windows users by repeating "freedom" and "choice" but they flip nitro shit just like their grandpas when you ask them to change one little thing, forgetting in an instant what they've been preaching and then saying they're going for BSD.

Ask any flagrant forum shit about an angry rant you can point out to them that they made about any of the above and they wouldn't remember it 3 weeks later. The exception is systemd because hating it became a meme. At the height of it just on this board, you'd see a couple of threads per day of something like "I want to remove systemd so what's the best way to remove it? btw what's an init system?" They are so memed into removing it, that they don't even know its generic name.

and here we are a few years later as the meme is repeated and the majority of people still don't give a shit, except for the super contrarians that had to make a separate distro that nobody fucking uses.

The reason why this meme took off is because it tricks you into thinking you're a developer, kind of how like failure women try to pretend they are programmers by copying HTML. Why SPECIFICALLY do you need to not have systemd? nobody ever answered this and would just re-spout the same shit psuedo-answer about how it "is the wrong paradigm" or some other nothing.

The core problem of systemd is it is a rejection of the core tenant of unix: do one thing and do it well.
systemd is a monolithic blob that does dozens of unrelated things. If systemd was 30 distinct, independent projects each focusing on a tool to do just one function I would take little issue with it. However, it is a bundle of tightly integrated units that do not easily allow one to pick and chose them independently.

Such a design makes it hard to swap out parts with alternatives and makes it harder to replace as a whole. SysV was far from perfect, and I am happy to see new ideas, but systemd is a handful of good ideas bundled with dozens of terrible ones and the worst being there is no practical way to take the good and leave the bad behind.

What did I say?

>This is ridiculous beyond
Except your personal reasons for abandoning windows are irrelevant. Windows is undesirable as an OS because it is bundled, you cannot swap components of it out for other ones that may perform a task better. Systemd is literally like the Windows of Linux. It's taking all the shit you're normally supposed to be able to swap out or replace with anything else and turning it into a huge bundled blob of shit that falls apart if you take away one piece.

It's the antithesis of linux.

Systemd is a giant codebase maintained by one team. It controls a huge part of how a linux OS works and if you want to alter that, your changes either have to go through systemd team or you have to manually apply them to every new released version of systemd yourself, which is not really feasible unless you're paid to do it.

Also security implications.

I don't have a great understanding of it, but I have learned a bit from reading on it in places like Sup Forums and a little on suckless.
From what I can tell, it breaks "'unix philosophy."
The idea behind 'unix philosophy' is that there should be one small program to perform each task, and that's all it should do. Systemd goes against this and instead performs multiple tasks that otherwise would have been done by several different programs.
The other issue I've managed to find is that the code has not all been audited, and so that raises some privacy concerns. Personally, I believe this is ridiculous. The code is all available, so it would make no sense to include any privacy invading features in systemd.

I see this whole thing as a non issue. Systemd does not take up significantly more disk space than all the utilities installed independently, does not increase memory usage, and does not lower speed/performance.
It has pretty much no impact on the end user, while making development much easier for the distro maintainers.

One last thing: I commonly hear the argument that Linux is all about freedom choice, and systemd is something that has become so relied on, that there aren't many alternatives left. While this is true, it isn't anything new. I'd you want audio to work you're going to need to use alsa or pulse. There are many other programs that are required and used across many different distros, but for some reason no one is complaining about that software.

I think it's a combination of paranoia, and people who don't really understand what it is.

That being said, I don't have any preference towards it or against it. If some conclusive evidence comes out that shows a negative aspect of systemd then I'll accept it for being bad for the Linux community. Up until now though, there hasn't been any concrete proof.

I'm not sure I follow your point. I explicitly stated I am open to change, however I want actual improvement, and systemd doesn't deliver that to me.

My actual experiences with it are it does well enough if you do things exactly as they intended you to do things but if you wish to deviate from the predefined path it will fight you. I expect a flexible system I can tinker with to fit my needs exactly, systemd fails to do that.

Amen.

It's a complicated shitty mess that forced out a well known init system.

>repeating "freedom" and "choice"
>One last thing: I commonly hear the argument that Linux is all about freedom choice, and systemd

The "choice" crowd are a cancer on the world and need to be executed immediately.

>Where is the choice to write in a non C language lines in the linux kernel???!!!!
>Where is my choice to run windows software in linux???!!!
>Why can I not use a picture for source code???!!!
>Where is the choice????!!!

The answer to this is that there is very little choice do to practicality or even physics.
There is no choice to get square wheels for your car because its retarded.
You are retarded if you want square wheels on your car.

I don't have a problem with this.

There is also OSS, though hardware support is a bit lacking.
You have multiple coreutils options, GNU, BSD, or busybox being major ones.
Shells you have sh, ash, dash, bash, csh, ksh, tsh, zsh, rc, and more.
Libc you have glibc, bsd libcs, ulibc, etc.
WM you have hundreds of options.

X is probably the only thing lacking a major alternative.

Aside from X, the amount of work to replace a single-function utility is fairly low. You could develop a new alternative with a reasonable effort. However, systemd is a huge project and is well beyond the scope of what a independent dev or a small group could feasibly replace whole-sale.

Crap like this bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825394 is just one example of the little things that make it a pain for me to use it.

Seems like there is an option to turn that off, so I don't really see the issue.
And regarding choice, you DO have the choice not to use systemd. There are other distros that do not use it, and you can install one of them instead.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong but your post was more pretending to be a developer or distro maintainer versus specifics as to why systemd is bad.

I agree completely, every time they say this they end up trying to do it themselves and re-creating the same thing, or just butt diddling and make some "alternative" that nobody uses.

Linux is chosen so many times because it's a system that's free and quickly runs business apps. If you spend more time being vocal and pretending to worry about the underlying system, you've completely failed and are probably some "tinkerer" (dropout). systemd will run the lamp stack just as well so you're never going to see anyone that matters complaining about this, it's only vocal "hobbyists", typical type who spends 10 years trying to "explain" why they should all switch

>gnome2 to gnome3

Gnome 3 is a crap GUI its the Windows 8 of DE.
Its objectively crap.
One employer put me on a workstation that did have Ubuntu, I thought I was fighting a new unity crap from Ubuntu however he informed me its Gnome3 not unity.

Its a toy GUI that is literary torture for any serious work outside of phone shit like
>Press facebook button to go to facebook.

The most hilarious part was that I was not allowed to change the DE.
Every fucken step took x10 longer.
Dear god, was it bad, you try using Gnome3 for serious work for 30 days and we see smart ass.

>The answer to this is that there is very little choice do to practicality or even physics.
what

>There is no choice to get square wheels for your car because its retarded.
true but how does this goes for running windows software in linux?

>You are retarded if you want square wheels on your car.
implying linux isn't just a cardboard car with square wheels, which then proceeds to lie to the user that it's actually a Bugatti

>Except your personal reasons for abandoning windows are irrelevant.

Commenting on:
>systemd is turning Linux into what people who left Windows for Linux many years ago had been escaping in the first place

So what?
I never left windows? Even if I did? Or what?
The dude is saying that there is some (unknown to me) reason why people (am I not people?) changed from Windows to GNU and I'm saying that I never changed for this (unknown to me) reason.

I do, I run gentoo, pre-systemd debian (phasing it out), slackware, openembedded, and Angstrom. I also have Open and FreeBSD systems. However udev got sucked into systemd pretty early and that is an ongoing pain.

I do roll my own distros for various devices. systemd was decidedly designed with the desktop in mind, many of its design decisions are clearly not for servers or embedded cases.

>this whole thread
holy fuck systemd just works and it's open source. Shut up

>what

>>There is no choice to get square wheels for your car because its retarded.
>true but how does this goes for running windows software in linux?

Ehh.
You can not:
>Swap the linux kernel with the windows kernel
>Or the DOS kernel
>Even free DOS
>Or ReactOS kernel
>Or the TempleOS Kernel

You simply can NOT! There is no choice.
This is the whole point.

Same "objective" meme has been said for all the other things in my list, same pattern where nobody remembers later. If gnome3 was first, you'd have been used to that, and would say the same thing about gnome2. I'm sure you'd find a list of historical freak outs of moving from 1 to 2 as well along with any distro that changed from xfce to gnome2.

I can still see how you are going to disagree with me, but my point is that there is a large percentage on this board that claims to hate ubuntu completely over unity, or debian completely over gnome3, when FIVE MINUTES AGO they were trying to explain to windows users in another thread about how you can have 1001 DEs if you want.

>why should you use linux?
>Well you get choice and can have any desktop you want. In windows you get explorer's shell. In linux you can have G2, G3, XFCE, etc.
>Okay I looked up what you said and I want to try out "Ubuntu" it comes with "Unity"
>NO FUCK UBUNTU UNITY SUCKS
>I thought you said I had freedom to install ANY DE?
>UBUNTU SUCKS
>Okay it does look a little dumbed down, but I am going to install it, and then go look up how to install another DE online.
>NO DON'T UBUNTU SUCKS. FUCK UNITY.

This shit happens because it tricks you into thinking you're some linux developer or something.

then it's not retarded, it's impossible you fucking retard

It "just works" for a very narrow definition of "working" If you find yourself needing something outside of that definition systemd is not your friend.

Again, if the project was split up into independent projects focusing on their own tools I would largely be content with that. That way the next good idea in init doesn't have to also handle replacing the two dozen other things included in systemd as well. This monolithic system ultimately can stunt further progress later.

What he's trying to say here is that these are less choices and more naturally selecting whatever is the best. You COULD drill a hole in a pistol and load it up with a fuse, and ball and black powder, and it would probably still fire, but it's a shitty idea. Distro maintainers didn't just pick one at random on a dartboard, they picked this solution because they felt it would be the best.

This is true and the end result, linux is made to run business apps and no amount of hobbyist basement sperg complaining is going to change this.

There comes a point when you need to stop.
You literally need top stop at this point!

I never used the word retarded in my post.

>You simply can NOT! There is no choice.
>This is the whole point.

My original point.
>The answer to this is that there is very little choice do to practicality or even physics.

>Same "objective" meme

Dude.
You can actually measure the time it takes for you to switch windows and if even the greatest athlete on Gnome3 can not switch windows faster then a average user on Gnome2.

You can measure the travel distance of your cursor to known this for a fact.

>when FIVE MINUTES AGO they were trying to explain to windows users in another thread about how you can have 1001 DEs if you want.

Ah you are on of these guys.
I think you don't understand let me explain this for you.

The ability to switch DE is good and hating on crap DE is good.
Let me explain this to you:

If we did not hate on and criticize complete shit DE or DE that turn to shit the devs would get away with turning their DE to absolute shit.

In windows:
>Get windows 8
>Its shit
>Bitch about it online
>Beg MS
>cry

In GNU:
>Get Gnome 3
>Its shit
>Bitch about it online
>Switch your DE to XFCE or cinnamon
>Lath and ridicule Gnome 3 online

I literally needed to interact with it in work because the bosses are
>Ubunto is linux!!!!111ONEONEONE
>You can not instal anything on the OS

yeah you did


honestly, not fucking one here has anything practical but some philosophies they think are right atm about systemd. and the answers you are providing are too general, something you just thought of.
It's retarded, when you create analogies, you might know what you want to tell, but others won't understand it how you do, nor want it because it's too general for it might be used for everything:
i.e. this
> You COULD drill a hole in a pistol and load it up with a fuse, and ball and black powder, and it would probably still fire, but it's a shitty idea.

all this shows is MAYBE, that you have a lot of people screwing around with a well made software and then publishing it. If this is your analogy for many distros, well then it might be understood as one, but it's not

>yeah you did
NOT in the post you are quoting.

I see you have difficulty understanding words (not everyone is a philosopher) or even thinking about the real world (not everyone is a philosopher).

The point is
>The answer to this is that there is very little choice do to practicality or even physics.

We are talking about the concept of choice and how it relates to the real physical world that dictates a handful or optimal strategies and then you have practicality (legacy systems and all the jazz).

Now don't get confused this is the main point.
My other point is that if you want to wast time, resources on creating a OS that is most about choice it unworkable
>How can you create a OS that will load every kernel and work with it even if the kernel is not made for the OS and you have no idea beforehand how it is written?

This concern is futile and irrelevant to pursue only to worship on the altar of choice.
We are talking pure choice here in its fullest meaning.
Not some pre backed posix complaint kernel.

This goal of choice will only wast time for nothing, if we can spent it creating a OS that will have real life applications.

And you are idiotic(I used the word retarded incorrectly, maybe) if you want to spend decades developing a OS that will work with the TempleOS kernel every kernel ever written and the linux kernel and that you can swap at any time during run time and where all programs work 100% of the time.

OP here

I have seen some good posts to change my mind
(seriously its not like I only made TT to hate on you)
However they are vague as fuck.

Here is what I want you to do:

1) Compile a example of how systemd can fuck over or make you paint yourself in the corner in the future (good hypothetical examples)
2) Compare this to other alternatives to systemd
3) Explain the benefits of the alternatives

All i have seen is good is some vague allegation of
>We need to have everything approved by the systemd team
>Its vendor lock in/gate keeper (maybe?)

>What he's trying to say here is
What I'm saying is that I'm criticizing the idea of choice and worshiping choice for its own sake.

I don't make irrelevant analogies and we can stay on topic with the examples of having a OS where you can swap the kernel for any kernel and especially non posix kernels like TempleOS or ReactOS.
However the OS needs to work with every kernel even with future kernels and unknown kernels.
This is in the definition of the word choice.
And what a real choice based OS would look like.

Lets say someone comes up with a better init model (the specifics of how it is better are the hypothetical), before with sysvinit you could write a new init and scripts to use all of the existing daemons. All of them are only loosely coupled with the init and each other so you could focus on creating just drop in replacement.

However, systemd several of these services are now handled by sub-projects of systemd, and are built entirely around the assumption of being used with systemd and each other. If you wish to replace any portion, you either are bound to do it within the confines of how systemd has defined it or you must also write these ancillary tools to replace the entire systemd ecosystem.

As a practical matter this tight integration results in greater inertia that must be overcome to effect later changes. tl:dr systemd is designed in such a manner to inherently resist being replaced by the next good idea (as opposed to the Unix way where things are designed with the assumption they will possibly be replaced or swapped out).

I happen to like OpenRC or even just the bsdinit. I reject the concept of there being only "one" right answer to init (or any problem/task). Each case is best served by a solution tailored to its unique demands/requirement. The best tools are built around giving you the flexibility to combine them into the solution you need rather than trying to be everything to everyone in every case. That is the reason why the unix philosophy works so well, it doesn't assume that any one solution will handle everyone's needs and it is better to build something to let the user build their own solution.

hmm.
good post.
I only don't really understand what systemd really is doing or how it works.

For my limited understanding it loads some programs and then fucks off after start up.
Some kind of loading script in one file.
This is how i understand it, care to elaborate on it VS a alternative?
Someone mentioned sysV.

How are they locked into the systemd ecosystem and why did people stop using sysV?

systemd is nominally an init system (but it also includes a lot of other things, which is the problem I have with it, aside from dbus being general awful), that is the first processed launched by the kernel that spawns everything else. It is the "root" of the userland. It launches all daemons/services (dhcp client, ntp client, httpd if it's a webserver, sshd, even the getty and xdm for user logins).

It is always running, though generally idle. Eventually on shutdown/reboot it stops the services and terminates. It also can stop/start services.

sysv is a bit crusty, and it's largely held together by scripts with a lot of biolerplate code.

However, replacing sysv is fairly simple, if you are inclined to. I have on some systems, using a hand-written shell script to handle it (embedded systems)

I also like the idea of having a swap in/out model where you can remove components.

Kind of like with removable accumulators in phones VS apples hard glued in non removable accumulator.

However I worked with systems (NOT OS, NOT POSIX) that where some build it from the ground up in C shit so I have a understanding for what its like to build something form the ground up.

While the system was incredibly replaceable it did have some hard line decisions where it was simply not worth the time to take years and millions of lines of code to make the system uber extensible.

It did have some assumptions about itself and and everything that replaced it needed to work with these assumptions.
The best analogy would be like a byte is assumed to be 8 bits.

It did have assumptions about its file structure who are taken for granted by most people like the inability to use previously reserved names Example :

>declaring a variable with a name that was already registered
or
>like in HTML you can never re use tag names even if they are deprecated and never used you can never re use like EVER! You need to name it or some shit.

This was never a problem, there where never used structures and it got some crust over time however it was the most extensible and modifiable system imaginable.

So I know from personal experience what the fine line between uber extensible and complete brick system are.

>Starts a bunch of shit at start up
Nice, this is what I assumed.

Why did the distros change from sysV to systemd?
Could they not fix the problems and written a new sysV like init?

Or is this another UEFI like syndrome?
Where the big fish instead of upgrading the BIOS made UEFI with the increase in MAX system HDD space and is good however they add a bunch of shit for lock in purposes of MS(this is extremely bad).

Is systemd not a result of UEFI needing some authentication shit for all OSs by any chance?

can't argue with this.

except that i was feeling confused that i was arguing with two posters, but it seems there's only you.

kek you used retarded there

so in other words, not creating a universal open source platform for all electrical appliances has created a world of many os-es, and the quality of these is not as it should be, due to squandering of resources in creating seemingly alike programs or worse programs

>so in other words, not creating a universal open source platform for all electrical appliances has created a world of many os-es, and the quality of these is not as it should be, due to squandering of resources in creating seemingly alike programs or worse programs

I don't even know what I'm reading here.

I will re state my point, there are assumptions that need to be made about things.
Like 1 byte = 8bits or stuff will not work.
Like back in the day you did have computers who did use 1 byte = 12 bits and stuff like it.

You also can not have naming conflicts in your code or 2 files named x in the same folder.

Think of it this way things work, even if you go back to electrical engineering there are standards for electricity and a device expects to get this level of DC or AC.

Even on a baby level you have square will not fit into round hole problems:
worldstandards.eu/electricity/plugs-and-sockets/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_electricity_by_country

So you have to deal with a some assumptions.
And you have no choice if it comes to electrical devices, you can not plug one type into another and everything you have assumes your standard.

Here you go Sup Forums more electrical sockets around the world.


Have fun.

This...

Now anyone who has ideas for a better part has to develop on systemd and make systemd better instead of having their own thing.

HOW MANY FUCKING MODULES AND LAYERS DO YOU NEED JESUS CHRIST