SystemD
-
If you don't care about systemd, then why post?
Sysvinit is done. It is not graceful at handling dependant services, it was hard to test, and customising a service was painful compared to unit files.
For someone who's been at Linux for 30 years, you clearly haven't spent any time fighting with init scripts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Poettering. His approach lacks any empathy for anyone who's entrenched in a current system and breaks stuff with his deployment approach.
But run0 solves a LOT of problems with sudo, problems that have always existed. Have you ever tried to deploy a sudoers file in an ecosystem of Linux systems relying on LDAP? Sudo definitely needs fixing.
-
Probably it's too much asking to go trough all of them indeed, it's lemmy afterall, already most of the comments didnt actually read the entire first post either.
But i think i didnt have to provide "pro-systemd" links as my intent is not to discuss it's technical goodness (which i do not dispute!) but to understand what is the common idea about the fact that systemd could be a critical part of Linux which is in the hands of IBM and Microsoft and what this means for the linux community overall.
Either nobody cares, or it's too much complottistic to be real.
-
Yeah, OpenRC is pretty good IMHO, never had an issue with it. sysv is just like comparing to Windows 3.1 i guess.
-
And yes you exactly waste people time
Jokes apart, well i think that having a core component so much linked to IBM and Microsoft is a potential danger to Linux itself. What if it was the kernel to be in the hands of Google and Microsoft? Where would Linux as we know it be going to?
This is concerning, i think. I thought it was clear from the first post. I dont want to share an opinion on how good or bad systemd is from a technical point of view, because i do not have such an opinion because i use OpenRC and never used systemd long enough to judge it from a tech pov
-
This is concern indeed, but not using systemd myself, i don't care too much.
Is the fact that such a critical core compoent spanning everywhere in the system is under the control of IBM and Microsoft that concerns me.
-
Cool! Maybe for a tight, small system is good? Let me know if you come to conclusions.
-
Yeah the telegram post that i copied here is indeed pretty polarized against systemd, that's why i reported it integrally because that is not my view, and i think that is dumb to call names microsoft or the like. Still i find it concerning that microsoft and IBM controls somehow systemd and what that means, if it gets even more rooted inside everything in linux.
-
Systemd provides a modern user space which fixes a huge number of problems. Ar first I found it difficult to learn and adapt but it had things I needed and I made the effort. I will always be nostalgic about things before systemd because I started using linux the mid 90s.
I'm not going to throw by GPU and multi-core CPU and go back to a 386 running dos ecause multithreaded applications and speculative execution scare me.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with running a BSD or a non-systemd linux distro if you like. They are still perfectly usable in a lot of situations doing the same stuff people did for years in these systems. If you have a server with a static set of devices that runs a fixed set of services at startup you don't really need systemd. I still have some systems like that but systems also handles those cases more efficiently and robustly.
You see these sort of link dumps from people who think vaccines cause autism or that some diet will cure cancer. Whatever the intention behind it I always associate it with a bad faith attempt to fuck with people's heads by bamboozling them with more information than they can rationally analyze. Believe what you want but you might want to consider that all the experts working on systemd and using it productively might know their shit.
-
Again i am not interested in the technical aspect of systemd, yes i do like handling init scripts (OpenRC, not sysv...) so maybe i am a bit unconventional. The point i was trying to make was about how sustainable is having a core piece of linux that keeps growing managed by IBM and Microsoft, and if this was of concern with anybody else, which seems not to be the case.
-
You've mentioned that you dont care about systemd several times, but it's certainly not clear from your post.
Many companies contribute to the LF. Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung, oracle, redhat, are all platinum members. Are you concerned because poettering works for ms that they're going to privatize Linux?
What is your issue with run0?
-
I've read the update you made to your original post.
So I now understand your concern is Microsoft control systemd and the proof of that is that the project lead works for Microsoft? Is that the only proof?
I think it's quite a grasp. There is no money in open source so the developers need jobs. In this case the developer happens to be employed by Microsoft.
-
understand what is the common idea about the fact that systemd could be a critical part of Linux which is in the hands of IBM and Microsoft and what this means for the linux community overall.
Either nobody cares, or it's too much complottistic to be real.
I wasn't familiar with the word complotism but yes I think this is correct. It's just a ridiculous conspiracy.
Even if were true that Microsoft had taken over systemd by stealth. What is the harm? If they suddenly do something malicious with it then all the distros will just fork systemd and continue without the malicious elements.
-
That is true, it's open source after all. But i am maybe too old to remember Microsoft strategies to embrace and extinguish... So i am a bit worried, like i was worried that Magisk would be crippled since the lead dev was hired by Google (and indeed, there have been very few progress on Magisk, with Kernel SU getting all the hype lately).
-
I don't even use sudo, so i will certainly not use run0. I have nothing against run0, it make even sense if the footprint is actually smaller than sudo. I was only reporting the article posted on telegram, as i have added a note to the original post, i did not share the view reported in the copied text, but i choose to report it verbatim for clarity.
-
Yes, i hope your view is correct. Indeed he can work for whatever company he likes, but i would see that as a conflict of interest of some kind. Remember also that when you sign up with big tech companies its common that you sell them the intellectual property of all your works, even outside work hours, specially if in the sale related field. Maybe it's not his case, i have no idea.
I was concerned. Maybe i still am a bit. But the fact that systemd can always be forked (or ignored, as that is still possible today) its a comfortable thought.
-
I'm holding out until SystemE comes out
-
Thanks! That's hilarious....
-
In your head, do you say System D or System'd?
-
Sys'Tem'd ? /s
-
Redhat rewrites everything "not invented here" and put these things under "systemd" name.
There are misundestanding between people that have political concerns, and people just happy to get unified shiny things.
If one day Redhat provides a Systemd-OS I'm sure most people will be happy, and will shit on the previous system, with a separated kernel and the freedom of composing your own OS. Most people just wants an open-source Windows and I can understand that.
But I also understand people that are ready to sacrifice some convenience to get a composable OS that can be maintained outside of big companies, thanks to simpler components
