Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
IMHO what hurts systemd adoption most is this very attitude.
Remarks about the benchmark
Posted Nov 28, 2012 14:54 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
Now, given systemd's technical benefits (use of cgroups for service babysitting, much easier configuration, virtually no need for service dependency configuration, many different activation schemes instead of just static runlevels), could you please name a reason to use another init implementation for Debian GNU/Linux? Because otherwise I'll be inclined to think that my opinion is actually correct.
Posted Nov 28, 2012 22:11 UTC (Wed) by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
Opinions are fine. Dicussing them is fine too. What "some people" dislike is to be forced into one (instead of, for example, being convinced).
> Now, given systemd's technical benefits (use of cgroups for service
> babysitting, [...]), could you please name a reason to use another init
> implementation for Debian GNU/Linux?
Because others might not share your opinion?
I won't go into the details of the discussion, they have been hashed out ad nauseam in other places.
I do appreciate Debian GNU/Linux because it goes to great lengths to enable multiple possibilities. As long as there are people willing to maintain other init systems, there should be other init systems. Your opinion is... your opinion, and is no better or worse than other people's opinion.
Trying to establish your opinion as The Truth (TM) isn't very helpful in a discussion. methinks.
Posted Nov 28, 2012 23:45 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
It's really easy for users like man_ls to request choice, because they don't have to do the actual work to make that possible. And they invariably fail to see that there is a (complexity) cost involved, and that ultimately they are the ones to pay it.
Posted Nov 29, 2012 0:38 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
There are a lot of people who don't like systemd, and they have expressed why. I believe that many have made valid points, you dismiss them all as being invalid.
and you wonder why people don't warm to systemd??? telling them that their concerns are all invalid and they just need to 'man up and get with the times' is not the way to change their mind.
Posted Nov 29, 2012 15:14 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
if you define "not having a valid point" to be "not agreeing that when I say it's better, it's better"...
There are a lot of people who don't like systemd, and they have expressed why. I believe that many have made valid points,
I guess this is where you and I are different. I've seen one thing that comes close to what I'd consider a valid argument in favour of sysvinit: init must never crash, and since sysvinit is smaller than systemd, there's a smaller chance for it to crash.
There are two problems with that. The first is that it's an entirely theoretical argument and lacks empirical evidence: systemd doesn't crash all the time, in fact I've never seen it crash. It is possible to make programs of that size (and much bigger ones, like the Linux kernel) reliable. The second is that it entirely ignores all the other ways in which systemd is more robust and secure than sysvinit: less need for service dependency configuration, service supervision with cgroups, predictable environments for service execution, fewer messy distro-specific shell scripts, syscall filtering, capability limitation, network isolation, SELinux support, on and on it goes.
So, if you think you or anyone else has a compelling argument to make against systemd, tell me, I'm listening. But I haven't heard one so far, and my opinion about what a sensible thing for the Debian GNU/Linux developers to spend time on would be reflects that.
Posted Dec 2, 2012 16:20 UTC (Sun) by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
Sigh. Quoting you upthread:
> "Debian should pick a single init system, and it's obviously systemd given
> its technical superiority over all its contenders"
You seem to be quite absolute about your standpoint. That's the one all should share.
You are of the strong opinion that systemd is (technically) superior. That's OK, but it's *your* opinion, not mine (besides, I value other, non-technical aspects too). Thus, it's fine Debian comes with the option of systemd (for you) and with other options (for me).
At least whenever there are enough folks willing to do maintenance. Right?
Posted Dec 2, 2012 18:36 UTC (Sun) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
Until you do, I'll maintain my position: supporting init implementations other than systemd on GNU/Linux is harmful due to the increase in complexity, need for testing and waste of developer time.
Posted Dec 2, 2012 23:03 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Posted Dec 2, 2012 23:36 UTC (Sun) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
And now YOU are accusing ME of ignoring other people's arguments? Sorry, you're ridiculous.
Posted Dec 17, 2012 16:43 UTC (Mon) by wookey (subscriber, #5501)
Read what tuomas wrote again and see if you can understand why your forthright advocacy is not helping.
It no longer an entirely technical question.
In principle I don't care at all what my init system is, but currently, after reading many of these threads and comparing what the upstart people say in comparison to what the systemd people say, and especially the way some of them say it, it's looking as if upstart is the preferable init system for me. Compare your posts with vorlon's in this particular thread, for example (approx bout 6 of this particular fight).
Did you see that? it wasn't a technical argument. You will dismiss it along with all the previous ones. You still won't have got me on your side.
Posted Dec 17, 2012 17:28 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
I would just like to point out that regardless of what HelloWorld or oldthomas or you or I say it doesn't change the design and implementation of Upstart and systemd so there are real technical arguments and you can safely ignore partisans and fan-bois on either end.
For my part the systemd design of dependancy resolution for process startup, the process monitoring and watchdog that gets rid of the need for daemontools, the reliable process shutdown and ability to have multiple instances of a particular daemon without having to do brain surgery, the simple config file format with includes and clear overrides that allows one to repeatably set up the process runtime environment, the built-in support for all the Linux container and security and resource management features and on and on and on are reasons why I think systemd is the better tool.
It's kind of similar to the arguments around SVN and git replacing CVS, there are real technical reasons why so many distros who didn't find enough value to make the jump to Upstart are jumping to systemd.
Posted Dec 17, 2012 18:03 UTC (Mon) by wookey (subscriber, #5501)
And relating to your analogy, I'm one of the people that much prefers SVN over git, so am clearly a hopeless luddite anyway. :-)
Posted Dec 4, 2012 14:06 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
I treat init like filesystems, and don't use inits that are still changing a lot or only a few years old for anything important. systemd still falls into both categories. In time, it will emerge from them and become mature (i.e. closer to dead :) ) and thus safe to use for real work in the view of paranoid maniacs like me.
Posted Dec 4, 2012 20:53 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Posted Dec 5, 2012 0:33 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Dec 5, 2012 1:03 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
Robustness is primarily a result of good design, developer competence, care and good development practices, not of age and lack of changes. Sendmail has had much more time to mature than Postfix, yet the latter has had far fewer vulnerabilities. And BIND 8 was so broken that they decided to throw it away and start over, resulting in the much more robust BIND 9.
Posted Dec 5, 2012 10:21 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Is there a way to quantify the right speed? Allow me to link my own post about reversible software development. Rushed developments are highly irreversible and always result in instabilities.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds