SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The good people over at Infoworld have published a story outlining why they feel systemd is a disaster.
Excerpt from Infoworld:
While systemd has succeeded in its original goals, it's not stopping there. systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux—which I don't think most Linux folks want. You see, systemd is growing, like wildfire, well outside the bounds of enhancing the Linux boot experience. systemd wants to control most, if not all, of the fundamental functional aspects of a Linux system—from authentication to mounting shares to network configuration to syslog to cron. It wants to do so as essentially a monolithic entity that obscures what's happening behind the scenes.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
systemd: Harbinger of the Linux Apocalypse.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 98 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"The subspace _W inherits the other 8 properties of _V. And there aren't
even any property taxes."
-- J. MacKay, Mathematics 134b
(Score: 2, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday August 19 2014, @01:45PM
From TFA:
I'd argue this isn't just an inelegance. It's a barrier to entry, as is the general linux federated model of small tools that do one thing.
It's incredibly flexible, incredibly powerful, and lets someone who knows what they're doing do almost anything, without needing to bring anything else along for the ride. But it also exposes a lot of low-level OS implementation details to the user. Where does your distribution of choice put certain utilities? Which version of package Y are you running, and how does it need to be invoked? All of these need to be known by SOMEONE to get certain higher-level user functionality (run an actual application) to work.
The current model is (as TFA notes) to have different configuration scripts for each standard distribution, which works as long as you're using a standard distribution, configured in a standard way, and it's a distro the author considered "important enough" to support. If not? You're on your own. The advice on most support forums is "go muck around with the initi script until it works."*
Linux is stuck between wanting to be an ultra-configurable advanced-user-only OS and a mainstream OS. "Linux on the desktop is a viable alternative to Windows!" has been "a year or two away" for over a decade now. It never gets over the hump, and in my view it's largely because of issues like this - the obscure incantations necessary to get everything to work that don't work everywhere and are impenitrable to non-experts. Remember Windows 3.1 when we had to go muck around in config files by hand sometimes to get stuff to work? Linux can be that times 10. It's not EVERYTHING - most stuff works fine (especially if you're on the latest version of a standard distro). But the things that DON'T work, REALLY don't work.
So, yeah. This isn't ao much about programmer convenience, or faster boot times. It's about USER convenience - I just want it to WORK without having to muck around in a shell script. I WANT the OS details to be abstracted for me. I DON'T CARE about how elegant the internals are for a programmer, or whether the architecture offends. I want the damn thing to WORK. And if Linux truly aspires to be an OS for non-OS experts, it needs to care more about non-expert user convenience than it does today.
I'm not saying systemd is THE solution - as noted, there are strong questions about whether systemd is actually well-written code that does the job it claims to do well. But a solution LIKE systemd is, in my mind, inevitable if linux wants to get out of the narrow niche of "an OS servers and programmers."
* Technically, the advice on MOST support forums is "LOL you suck newb. Learn how Linux works and come back when you're less of an idiot."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bart9h on Tuesday August 19 2014, @02:09PM
You say
The current model is (as TFA notes) to have different configuration scripts for each standard distribution, which works as long as you're using a standard distribution, configured in a standard way, and it's a distro the author considered "important enough" to support.
and then
It's about USER convenience - I just want it to WORK without having to muck around in a shell script.
Well, the user who just want it to work will pick a mainstream distribution (or, more likely, have it picked for them, like a computer that has Ubuntu per-installed, or something) that just works, and will have a working init script for that software.
The rest of us who want to run Slackware, can still understand and fix what's wrong by hand.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @02:32PM
I and many others are fine with the "ultra-configurable advanced-user-only OS".
there is your problem, now it's about what *you* want.
Linux doesn't want to. Politics, news, some very vocal people and/or some distribution want it to for reason not yet clear to anyone. Linux is doing fine with it's 1% market share and all this mess happens because some Very "Smart" People have an agenda.
And that's why I like it. I came late to Linux (2006), I *never* was called "LOL you suck newb" on any forum. You know why? because I did my homeworks *before* asking silly questions ("Lol war iz the registry editor?"). I'm still learning new stuffs every day. It made me *understand* (or at least try to) how things work. And I'm not even a developer. You got a brain. Use it!
I don't want my Debian to be dumbed down to increase market share for idiots that will come ask the most stupid questions without even thinking twice (have you ever read a forum for Windows users ? it's appalling ... ). We don't give a fuck about market share.
I'm so fucking tired of the Eternal September and the crappy mess this is all slowly becoming because of some people with an agenda that I'm actually considering switching to a sanely well-engineered BSD ...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday August 19 2014, @06:56PM
But you aren't getting an "ultra-configurable advanced-user-only OS" what you are getting is a corporate controlled "ultra-configurable advanced-user-only OS" which is why stank like systemd and pulse can be forced from on high and you WILL take it or be stuck on "Bob's distro" with low user numbers, overworked devs, and lousy support.
The reason why even guys like you should want Linux to become useful to the masses is simple...it benefits YOU through better hardware support (because it will be harder for OEMs to ignore Linux with a strong userbase), more devices that are Linux friendly OOTB and most importantly more money for Linux development that isn't tied to a corp who only gives a shit about one or two niche applications like LAMP. For a perfect example of how different things could be for Linux with better mainstream support one only has to look at Android. Android now has devices of every shape and form, from tiny thumbsticks to full blown desktops, from phones to watches. Also look at the amount of Android compatible hardware coming out daily, its growing by leaps and bounds.
So having better mainstream support is better for everybody, it means less control by corps that only want to use Linux for a few niche roles, more hardware and software support, its just better all around.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @08:44PM
I beg to differ on (at least) one point: we got into the corporate-controlled thingy *because* Linux was becoming more mainstream, in the first place. Someone saw a potential cash-cow and now the corps (Red Hat, Canonical, (Google ?) etc.) want it to become even *more* mainstream because it means more money in for them. It's in their interest (I don't blame them that's what they exist for, making money) not mine. I wish it was that simple: more user == more drivers/support, but that's only part of the bigger picture. The more users we have, the more the Big Corps will want to be the only guardians of the True Linux and relegate us into, as you put it correctly, lousy "Bob's distro". Which we don't really want ...
Until now, we had the non-corporate Debian to turn to, but now it's taking the systemd way when they should give exactly zero fuck about it. And don't get me started on the "but systemd is only optional in Debian". We all know very well how *that's* gonna end.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by morgauxo on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:19PM
Linux is supposed to be about options. Distros are making it hard to NOT use systemd.
I want to see Linux be a major player on the desktop. Why? Because I use Linux and I want to be sure that the 'mainstream' software I want is/remains available to me. For that we need a market. For example, for years there was no up to date Flash player. Flash sucks but unfortunately at the same time a great deal of internet content required Flash. There were options for Linux but none of them was perfect. Today that is not an issue but I would like to see things like Netflix, Amazon, etc... working on MY desktop.
Apparently to be popular we need something like Systemd? I don't get it. Using an openrc based distro I don't remember having to edit config files, startup scripts, etc to do desktop stuff. I only did that when I was setting up server processes. Whatever... we had multiple startup systems to chose from for years. Why does it suddenly have to be just one, systemd!?!?
I see no problem with desktop 'normal user' based distros using something like Systemd. Just don't take away my option to use one of the more Unixy ways. This really should be low level stuff. Applications shouldn't care and I should still be able to use all the same applications as the 'normal user'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:33PM
Apparently to be popular we need something like Systemd?
If you want any traction with this OS the answer to that is yes.
MS used to have the *exact same problem*. I remember well autoexec/config.sys/win.ini hell. All of the 'old' ways are still there (see autoruns). But MS makes it pretty clear what the 'right way' is. It makes it extremely easy to program to as the API is known and well documented. Honestly, at this point (having used linux since it fit on a couple of floppies) it is embarrassing. The big distros are just starting to 'hey maybe we should look similar for things like steam'. My synology uses one way to init something my android another my tv yet another and my desktop another and my servers yet another way. I can not program to that and have a well tested product. Which is sad as linux/bsd have a very rich programming environment. But it takes lots of tinkering to get to the point where things run on all systems. Time I could be better spending adding something cooler to my product.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Tuesday August 19 2014, @04:09PM
Nope, still don't get it.
What are you setting up? Most modern end-user oriented distros autodetect everything! It just works!
Or, if it doesn't it almost always means you have unsuported hardware. Systemd can't fix that!
What is Systemd replacing that a 'normal' computer user would EVER have touched or even seen?
If you are spending hours configuring openrc or some other startup scripts you must be doing something that this new target audience will not be interested in anyway!
(Score: 3, Informative) by morgauxo on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:59PM
"Technically, the advice on MOST support forums is "LOL you suck newb. Learn how Linux works and come back when you're less of an idiot."
I'm a bit skeptical of you here. Have you experienced this or are you just repeating old FUD? Personally I don't ask a lot of questions but I do Google them. I almost always find other people have already asked it and... even more have answered! On the rare occasion I see an RTFM comment it is one reply among several and the others are more helpful. If people are just answering with "LOL you suck newb" then where are these forum threads that have helped me coming from? That is my anecdotal experience.
However... maybe forums are not best for everyone. I think many of the masses will never get there answers through a search engine. It is too impersonal. They want someone to hold their hand. Personally this baffles me. When I have a problem I don't want to wait for an answer. I don't want to chat. I want a fix! When I need social interaction I have friends for that.
But.. I've worked in tech support. (been a while since then thankfully) Some people just don't care that the answer is right there for them to grab. They want someone to hand it to them! Throughout the day they interact with people who they are paying money to. They get smiles and friendly banter from their grocery clerk, bank teller, etc... They call their ISP or their computer manufacturer when they have a problem and expect the person on the phone to treat them like gold. One way or another they paid those people! They don't really like them. They don't really enjoy what they are doing. They are acting the part that gets them paid!
People answering questions on forums are NOT getting paid. They just for their own reasons want to see that piece of software be used and so they are filling the gaps where documentation might not have been enough for someone. Once that gap is filled they don't want to keep repeating themselves. That makes it a job!!
Does that mean Linux can't be good for these socialy needy people? No not at all. If you can buy someone to hold your hand through Windows you can buy someone to hold your hand through Linux. Just get a paid distro and someone at the company you bought it from should pretend to like you too!
Sound a bit like prostitution... well... if you don't like that then just Google it!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Tuesday August 19 2014, @06:07PM
You actually don't want your application/service to depend on any specific init system. You just write your service and let other distro managers repackage your stuff for their distro. They may provide only one init config file or maybe all of them.. doesn't really matter to you. You can merge all the various init configs back up into your master branch with some detection logic.. but that would be kind of you.
Linux is not windows. There is not just one service for each need. There is a multitude of competitors with various api differences (unfortunately). The best win because they are adopted more than the others. If a better replacement comes along then the old is swapped out. Good luck doing any of that with systemd. In a few years it will begin rotting and you won't be able to just swap it out with a better solution.
TL;DR: If you tie yourself to systemd then you will die with it.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:38AM
I'm not talented/trained in any STEM discipline, began using Linux full-time in Spring 2008, and I call bullshit on your post.
The only place I noticed users being rude to newcomers asking for help was the Debian discussion area. *How* the other forums were helpful varied (some gave answers outright, some led the newbie to figure out the solution, some suggested where/what they should look for likely answers) but they were friendly about it. In fact, many remained calm & still tried to be helpful even when the newbie was being an asshat.
Systemd & stuff like GRUB2 makes things a thousand times WORSE for regular users like me, let alone the newbies. With the old setup, when stuff broke (almost always because I was experimenting, to be clear) I would search the web and eventually find some simple command or text file I could edit to fix things. It was as newbie-friendly as an OS could get.
With systemd, things are breaking for reasons I can't fathom, and web searches reveal such oh-so-helpful hints as "in the past, we fixed this by changing permissions, but that was before systemd." It's like going back to 2001: "your modem won't work, because Linux does not like winmodems." So far, all I can do is keep updating my system and hope something will magically "fix" it for me. It's like trying to fix my mother's Windows machine when things just as mysteriously stop working on it.
I feel like the programmers behind this mess are taking the same paternalistic attitude towards everyone that many guys had towards women 100 years ago: “oh, don't worry your little head about it, *we'll* handle this for you.” Same obnoxious attitude when it comes to system GUI changes, whether it's Unity, GNOME 3, Firefox Australis, or other things: “now, now, I know you think you'll hate it, but that's really just your fear of change speaking.” Talk about arrogant!
It's also a complete load of crap to claim that this is for the users or for Linux's popularity. That would require them to actually ask in the first place -- and in many cases, not only did they not ask or consult any studies, one team openly told users to STFU when users became too vocal to ignore. Go read the developers' discussions on any of the various projects I've named. You'll see that they're doing it because new projects are fun & exciting (merely fixing bugs is boring hard work), they're enthralled by newness in general, and because they believe they're superior to past devs on the team.
Distros are leaping to systemd purely because it's new -- the same stupid reason that they jumped the gun in embracing KDE 4 and GNOME 3 long before they were ready for daily use.