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
Myths not debunked but confirmed
Posted Jan 28, 2013 20:34 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 8:13 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 12:05 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 20:37 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
The victims here are sysadmins who have to deal with a variety of systems who a new thing dumped on them.
Pro: systemd might be better for the subset of systems that use it
Con: most systems don't use it
Sysadmins have many things to learn and accomplish and not welcoming this relatively useless (to them) change is not a sign of incompetence but rather sanity.
That doesn't mean that they should get to dictate how the systems are architected, but they are the ones who get dumped on by this particular set of changes.
So yes, you were blaming the victims. Don't do that.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 21:38 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 22:12 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
And besides, most systems don't use SysVinit either, and even those who do often bear no resemblance to each other as pretty much everything is done by system-specific scripts. The introduction of systemd actually led to an *increase* in uniformity as distros share most of the configuration files.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 4:56 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
Every response has been an exercise in mischaracterization.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 22:15 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
If you truly think systemd is "relatively useless" for sysadmins, you should re-read this discussion.
Sysadmins need to be able to correctly and efficiently deal with failure situations. Once you use "systemctl status" and see instantly what the problem is, as opposed to grepping through heaps of ps and syslog output, you will not want to go back.
A more obscure, yet incredibly useful, feature of systemd is to start services in a consistent environment. No root login whose strange environment settings can contaminate the daemon and render its messages useless. No tty which can randomly block or vanish. No job control that can block your program or send it strange signals. And so on.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 4:57 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
AFAICT, those people are now called "devops", and they may love it.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 7:19 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
You seem not to notice that you contradict yourself.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 12:16 UTC (Wed) by mgb (guest, #3226)
Posted Jan 30, 2013 13:28 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
FLOSS will simply evolve to leave the systemd-limited distros behind.
I think that, given time, the problem will take care of itself since nobody will be able to come up with anything that is both enough of a significant improvement on System V init to get System V init anywhere near what systemd does even today, compatible with tradition enough so the die-hard System V init fans won't complain, and gets traction in enough distributions so people will actually be interested. (The ones which have subscribed to systemd already aren't going back unless whatever the System V init camp has to propose is really a lot better than systemd, which would be quite surprising.) This is very unlikely to actually happen since historically the distributions didn't even seem to be able to agree on a standard for init scripts, let alone all of System V init or indeed an evolutionarily improved System V init.
In the meantime, systemd will improve even further and, with the major Linux distributions behind it, will become even more compelling. In effect, System V init will leave systemd behind in exactly the way that CVS left Git behind.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 14:47 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 20:42 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
I made a statement which linguistically a clear thing which can be accepted or rejected by the reader. So your attempt to imply such underhanded tactics is itself underhanded. Which, if you didn't realize, is why you were being unreasonably rude.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds