How Debian managed the systemd transition

Posted Sep 24, 2015 4:09 UTC (Thu) by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
Parent article: How Debian managed the systemd transition

Yo, men !

http://ibin.co/2Ge1kuufRD1G

The plot:

Recently a poster presented a view of systemD(efeat) - mostly pro, with
the exception of its packaging.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-...

His packaging proposal was brushed off as wrong.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-...
"It's 119 executables now, btw."
"It's a set of basic building blocks distributions can build an OS from."
"We provide people with sources, with a git tree, and it's up to them how they
decide to package that."
"(...) we keep all components of our system together in one repo, under
a single release schedule and without stable, internal APIs."
"(...) We need to keep things maintainable. And you don't make things
maintainable (...) by forcing us to stabilize internal APIs (...)".
"(...) the only folks who should care about our updates are those who
are technically versed enough to not need version numbers, but who can
read our NEWS files."
"Well, it's supposed to be a steady stream of smaller additions instead
of major feature additions in long intervals."
"We can drop things from our git tree from time to time, (...)".

There is a darker side behind the facade.

http://ewontfix.com/14/
"... an aggressive, dictatorial marketing strategy including elements such as:
Engulfing other "essential" system components like udev and making them difficult or impossible to use without systemd (but see eudev).
Setting up for API lock-in (having the DBus interfaces provided by systemd become a necessary API that user-level programs depend on).
Dictating policy rather than being scoped such that the user, administrator, or systems integrator (distribution) has to provide glue. This eliminates bikesheds and thereby fast-tracks adoption at the expense of flexibility and diversity.
"

An0nym0usC0ward
"True, systemd consists of 69 [edit: 119] binaries. But they are so tightly coupled that to my knowledge nobody so far was able to provide a fully compatible alternative implementation for any of them. Besides, since the APIs internal to those systemd binaries are not only undocumented but also constantly changing, providing a compatible alternative implementation means aiming for a moving target.
Even if LP holds the 69 [edit: 119] binaries as proof that systemd isn't monolithic, to me that's BS. The strong coupling is what makes for a monolith."

The plot thickens:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-...
"systemd is a core port of Linux ecosystems these days, just like
the kernel. It's a foundation layer that finally brings some much
needed order, coherency, and vertical integration to the mess that
is Linux userspace."

The plot thickens more:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-...
"To further resonate that. Just like with kernel, every vendor make
their own longterm maintenance thing of systemd.
Look at Centos vs Debian kernel, they are widely different, even if
released from same series or at the same time.
Ditto systemd, integration done in Debian, Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora
are all different as well."

Ouch !

The plot thickens even more:

Reason got an upper hand over vanity and a proposal of a prospect of
systemD(efeat) becoming a "Linux-based Init and Service Management System
Standard":
"Yeah, but no. I doubt writing standards like that makes any sense at all...
Sorry,
...
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat"

I hope the above topic and the following one will be discussed during their
upcoming systemD(efeat) conference:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-...

Btw, this is Pieter Bruegel's take on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#/media/File:Pieter_B...

Sigh

Posted Sep 24, 2015 13:33 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (4 responses)

So I was really hoping we would get through this one without somebody trying to restart the whole systemd flamewar. No such luck. The last time you did this, just over a month ago, you were warned that your troll bit would be set the next time. This is the next time.

Sigh

Posted Sep 24, 2015 22:42 UTC (Thu) by alvherre (subscriber, #18730) [Link] (1 responses)

What is the "troll" bit? I don't think I see it set for this guy.

Sigh

Posted Sep 25, 2015 4:08 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

I'm guessing it means any future trolling will be redacted or deleted? It's a symbolic bit?

Sigh

Posted Sep 25, 2015 1:12 UTC (Fri) by mgb (guest, #3226) [Link] (1 responses)

I found what you have designated as a troll to be a tad more useful than the article itself which was old news to those of us who have following events as they transpired.

But you clearly disagree with his opinion while I share it.

Sigh

Posted Sep 25, 2015 2:11 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Umm…okay. So a comment *starting off* invoking Godwin's Law is more useful to you because you spent hours reading debian-devel. Great, maybe, just *maybe* there are some folks here don't follow debian-devel who are interested in how the transition was done (such as me who does some support for various Linux system issues at work, some of them being "how does systemd do this?"[1]).

I don't really see anything interesting in the original post other than a "see how much of am asshat I can be" link to a proposal for systemd.conf akin to asking to present a "90% of the world doesn't want to run Debian, nevermind know what it even is" poll done (based on results at a university computer lab) at a Debian conference asking them to give up and go back home.

The rest, I'm going to assume is cherry picking quotes because he has earned that reputation at least (and having read the source of one, yeah, there's no need to reconsider it right now).

[1]And the majority of the time it's "oh, that's much nicer", the rest being "hmm, that's different, but OK". But I'm going to assume you'll just deny their existence.