SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Debian Jesse is going to have Gnome3 as the default desktop.
The desktop re-qualification page, used to help choose which desktop will be default, has in the Jesse version a weight for systemd integration, and of course only Gnome3 does it (at least for now). This will surely make the systemd/gnome3 fanbase happy, but possibly will make others unhappy, as it [may] be seen as another step towards mono-culture, until we soon end up with all distros being redhat clones.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Integration with systemd Making Gnome3 the Default Debian Desktop
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 135 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You have many friends and very few living enemies.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 24 2014, @04:31PM
So far all I hear is, "There are no advantages to systemd on the server. Nobody cares about boot time on servers."
I would moderately correct your remark in that I actively see parallel booting as an intense disadvantage for servers or any professional application (embedded, pretty much everything but generic "who cares" desktops). When some insane kernel panic happens I REALLY need to know its because of the previous log line that it was starting up mysql so start looking there. I have a huge financial incentive in not wasting time looking at mysql when the real problem is it started up 15 things at once and the sheer load blew it up or some random malloc failed or parallel process #6 tried to enable ipv6 on an interface at the same time as parallel process #7 tried to disable ipv6 or whatever other form of parallel race condition idiocy that doesn't really need to exist anyway.
In a professional environment, the only thing worse than parallel init, is dependency based or semi-non-deterministic init. So if mysql takes an extra 100 ms to start because the NAS is a bit slow today, then, and only then, does apache decide to crash, and since its at the same time its a PITA to troubleshoot and all that really matters is reboots are no longer a way to get the system to a deterministically stable state, they just kinda randomly don't work sometimes. Awesome, just what I want in a server OS (not!).
I would much rather lose 5 seconds of uptime on my redundant load balanced servers per monthly reboot than have to randomly and unpredictably have to spend hours troubleshooting race conditions once per year, not to mention potential data loss and lost labor time of the users and lost revenue. That just doesn't work out well mathematically for me.
So yeah, just architecturally, I bitterly hate the idea of systemd on a server and will actively do anything to avoid it. Its just inherently amateurish and unprofessional to use. Its an epic noob move, both technically and from the business side, to trade reliability via elimination of an entire class of potential problems for being 1% faster at something we practically never do anyway. Being dragged kicking and screaming by the OS vendor is "probably" safe, but making a business decision like that independently would be reasonable grounds for termination.