Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Posted Jan 27, 2013 2:31 UTC (Sun) by larryr (guest, #4030)
From the vacuous perspective where all usage of text files and shell scripts is equivalent, it could be speciously argued that systemd is not much more demanding of system administrators than its predecessors.
Posted Jan 27, 2013 3:14 UTC (Sun) by nirbheek (subscriber, #54111)
At this point in time, I count Pulseaudio and systemd amongst the best pieces of software written for Linux. The no. of features that they expose to ordinary users and sysadmins is staggering—and they do this without removing features or functionality, and while maintaining near-perfect backward-compatibility. I'm shocked that no one realises how hard it is to do this, and what value these add to our ecosystem.
At this point, after dozens of blog posts by Lennart explaining systemd, if I see anyone arguing the way you are, I am compelled to conclude that they never really gave systemd a fair chance; or, worse, they're too angry at its very existence to even try that.
I feel like most of the animosity towards these projects is not because of their (perceived) lack of technical merit, but because of the abrasive personality of their creator.
Posted Jan 27, 2013 5:51 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
I think this happens a lot and is also an out of date assessment, Lennart may be matter of fact in a stereotypically Germanic sort of way, which rubs some people the wrong way, but seems to have matured greatly since the flamewars during the PulseAudio days 5+ years ago.
Posted Jan 27, 2013 3:24 UTC (Sun) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652)
On the other hand, a simple declarative text file is certainly more elegant. New sysadmins are just lucky, older sysadmins with a good taste will be happier too, after they spend a few hours to learn some new tricks.
Posted Jan 27, 2013 5:01 UTC (Sun) by Aliasundercover (subscriber, #69009)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 7:26 UTC (Tue) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463)
ESR does not speak for me
Posted Jan 31, 2013 13:12 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
Posted Jan 31, 2013 15:29 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Posted Jan 28, 2013 14:40 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
All this stuff is deadly simple with systemd.
systemctl status vdsmd
This is a huge boost in productivity for system administrators to be able to have all the information in one spot.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 19:02 UTC (Tue) by dfsmith (guest, #20302)
Posted Jan 28, 2013 18:05 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
(I don't use an early userspace, so init=/bin/bash actually does work for me presently.)
Posted Jan 28, 2013 18:22 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
Posted Feb 6, 2013 3:17 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
Sorry, but my extensive experience with assorted shell scripts handling system-y stuff is that they are about as easy to debug as your running kernel, irrespective of tools available (and when things really go south, the requisites for any tools higher up than a well-placed echo just aren't available at all).
Posted Jan 28, 2013 21:54 UTC (Mon) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
With systemd it's "systemd.unit=emergency.service". Somewhat more verbose, but I just set my alternate boot command line to it and I'm done.
>> systemd developers suggests that I can't get an environment
>> where services haven't been started in general,
>> but I can interactively start them
Who suggests that, and where? It's patently false. In an emergency.service environment you can "systemctl start foo.service" just like you normally do.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 23:27 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
"Some people try to imply that the shell was a good debugger. Well, it isn't really. In systemd we provide you with actual debugging features instead. For example: interactive debugging, verbose tracing, the ability to mask any component during boot, and more."
suggests to me that, if you have some problem booting with systemd, you get a special systemd debugger rather than the shell. This makes me worried, because I suspect that I might have problems unrelated to systemd, and might actually have to run the configuration tool for some other service that's needed in order to authenticate users, and a systemd-specific debugger might not make that feasible. However, the truth is that the shell is a good debugger, and it's what systemd actually provides, along with command-line tools to help debug systemd in particular. This is a particularly unfortunate statement, because it plays into the impression people have of systemd that the developers think the tools you understand aren't good and you need to use their new thing instead in order to work with systemd.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 23:56 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Really, whom is this kind of discussion supposed to help? Grown-up people in computing ought to be able to make an argument based on facts.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 11:37 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Come on now. Why dirty a nice flamewar with nasty facts when you can have a stew of speculation and imputations of bad faith and attacks based on myths which are debunked in the very article this is a comment thread for?
The only thing we're missing is a nice car analogy! So let me provide one.
systemd's an Edsel with the trailer and aircraft-carrier-catapult attachments, sysvinit is a Peel Trident. (I just want a Volvo.)
Posted Jan 31, 2013 13:37 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 7:49 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
Wrong. You get a shell.
Of course you'd then use systemctl commands to figure out what's wrong with your boot (start services individually, etc.), but that's a Good Thing – you want to start your bootup jobs in the same environment as when booting regularly, otherwise you might mask the problem.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 8:53 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
Of your comment, my comment, systemd's actual behavior, and Lennert's original post, the only one that doesn't say that a shell plus systemctl is the right thing is Lennert's original post. That's why I said that *Lennert's writing* gives the wrong impression, and never said that systemd's *actual behavior* was wrong.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 17:33 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 16:18 UTC (Tue) by s0f4r (guest, #52284)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds