Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday September 19 2014, @05:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the voice-from-on-high dept.

Systemd has turned into the Godzilla of Linux controversies. "Everywhere you look it's stomping through blogs, rampaging through online discussion threads, and causing white-hot flames that resemble Godzilla's own breath of death," writes Jim Lynch. Now Sam Varghese reports at iTWire that although Linus Torvalds is well-known for his strong opinions, when it comes to systemd, Torvalds is neutral. "When it comes to systemd, you may expect me to have lots of colorful opinions, and I just don't," says Torvalds. "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it."

Oh, there's been bitter fights before. Just think about the emacs vs vi wars. Or, closer to systemd, the whole "SysV init" vs "BSD init" differences certainly ended up being things that people had "heated discussions" about. Or think about the desktop comparisons.

I'm not really sure how different the systemd brawls are from those. It's technical, but admittedly the systemd developers have also been really good at alienating people on a purely personal level too. Not that that is anything particularly new under the sun _either_: the (very) bitter wars between the GPL and the BSD license camps during late-80s and early-90s were almost certainly more about the persons involved and how they pissed off people than necessarily deeply about other differences (which existed, obviously, but still).

Torvalds was asked if systemd didn't create a single point of failure which makes a system unbootable if it fails. "I think people are digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @06:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @06:50AM (#95376)

    We need a Kernel. We don't need systemd. Options are good. Systemd takes those away. Simple as that.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @04:43PM (#95891)

    Yes we need something like systemd. Don't believe me? Try making a system which is suitable for end-users with just a bare kernel.

    The only way to end up with something that meets the expectations (the user's, not your's) is to rewrite systemd. Maybe you'll do it better, maybe worse, but you'll still eventually rewrite systemd's functionality.

  • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Friday September 19 2014, @09:11AM

    by mtrycz (60) on Friday September 19 2014, @09:11AM (#95402)

    We could use a microkernel too. And working one. So we could have more choice, and I would definately choose that.

    Unfortunately people really like to do some bashing more that contributing.

    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
  • (Score: 1) by soylentsandor on Friday September 19 2014, @08:33PM

    by soylentsandor (309) on Friday September 19 2014, @08:33PM (#95649)

    http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/ [d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com]

  • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:32AM

    by mtrycz (60) on Saturday September 20 2014, @09:32AM (#95799)

    Thanks, I'll use that.

    I actually always spell it wrong on purpose, because I can't quite remember the right spelling (but strangely I can remember this one).

    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 19 2014, @11:01AM

    by c0lo (156) on Friday September 19 2014, @11:01AM (#95423) Journal

    Unfortunately people really like to do some bashing more that contributing.

    Contributing to what exactly?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 1) by http on Friday September 19 2014, @05:28PM

    by http (1920) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 19 2014, @05:28PM (#95573)

    Code to de-integrate systemd dependancies from common libraries. Example from recent debian bug report (762116):

    I suspect the culprit here is packages which perform a broad array of functions, rather than doing one thing and doing it well. So brasero needs X functionality, which can be found in package W. Package W also provides Y functionality, which depends on systemd-sysv. So therefore brasero depends on systemd-sysv, even though it doesn't *need* it.

    ... meaning, library package W is in desperate need of refactoring.

    The response from an apologist was, well, apologetic and didn't make a lot of sense at first:

    brasero needs to know when a CD is inserted, and it needs access to the raw device to actually burn the CD. This access is granted to the person physically logged on the machine. The only way to know who is logged on is through systemd-logind.

    I was surprised to read this, since last I looked under the hood, debian used consolekit. Unfortunately a bit of research today revealed that consolekit (which was reasonably platform neutral, having ports to BSDs) was deliberately orphaned with Poettering on the team. I'm starting to see a pattern with this particular developer.

    Systemd is probably a bad design, and the debian project's decision to have alternate init systems available is coming up against the hard reality that systemd does not play well with others even when in a different room.

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
  • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday September 19 2014, @09:14AM

    by Geotti (1146) on Friday September 19 2014, @09:14AM (#95404) Journal

    We could use a microkernel too.

    Well, then you'll be happy to know that Minix 3.3 was recently released [minix3.org].

  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 19 2014, @02:20PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 19 2014, @02:20PM (#95495)

    Small world, i was reading up on Minux last night. Was thinking about attempting a retro-computer and exploring OS options.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
  • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Friday September 19 2014, @09:29AM

    by mtrycz (60) on Friday September 19 2014, @09:29AM (#95407)

    Yeah, I never got around to trying that one out. Thanks.

    Does it work?

    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Geotti on Friday September 19 2014, @09:54AM

    by Geotti (1146) on Friday September 19 2014, @09:54AM (#95413) Journal

    Haven't tried it myself, but supposedly Minix is (much) more than just an/for academic exercise.
     

    It runs on x86 and ARM CPUs, is compatible with NetBSD, and runs thousands of NetBSD packages.

    It was only with the third version, MINIX 3, and the third edition of the book, published in 2006, that the emphasis changed from teaching to a serious research and production system, especially for embedded systems. [http://www.minix3.org/other/read-more.html]