SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Earlier this week, KDE developer David Edmundson described in his blog how KDE would be tied to logind and timedated but not systemd itself, at least according to his claim that "The init system is one part of systemd that doesn't affect us at all, and any other could be used.".
Later, in the blog comments, he clarifies that starting with plasma 5.5, in 6 months, they'll drop "legacy" support, according to a decision taken in the plasma sprint.
Even if one can only guess why there is no formal announcement, it seems clear - unless somehow there is a shim or emulator, not only for logind but also for timedated, in 6 months KDE will be unusable unless you are running systemd. And the blog entry makes it clear that the plan is to remove more and more functionality from KDE and use systemd instead.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday February 20 2015, @10:11PM
I am not an OS designer and my personal opinion about the technical merits of systemd is pretty worthless. I can see, however, that major distributions are adopting systemd one after another, motivated in large part by what THEY perceive as technical advantages, and the doom is failing to materialize. I also read the criticism of systemd by people who are qualified to judge it on technical issues, and they seem to agree on the fact that it's not perfect, but basically works. I also knew you have no idea what you are talking about when you mentioned the "design philosophy". Would that be the "UNIX design philosophy", by any chance? "Do one thing" and blah blah blah? Because Linux (just 1 example!) spat all over that, but I don't hear you complaining.
If what you are saying is true, then the bug can be summarized as follows: when boot fails, logs are unavailable, period. What does it have to do with logs being binary or text? I am not saying systemd is bug-free, I am just saying YOUR objections to it make no fucking sense to me.
Even I can tell you don't seem to understand (or may be don't even care to try to understand) how systemd is designed. No, you don't have any technical objections, because if you had one, you'd let us know what it is, and then we would see that like all the other inits, systemd has its pros and cons.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hash14 on Saturday February 21 2015, @04:36AM
I can see, however, that major distributions are adopting systemd one after another, motivated in large part by what THEY perceive as technical advantages, and the doom is failing to materialize.
The doom will most likely materialize in the same form as Shellshock or Heartbleed or any other of the many other high profile vulnerabilities we just saw last year. But LP would eat his shoe before admitting he's wrong so nothing will get done about it, plus the way they see any attempt to fix their disaster as WONTFIX NOTABUG just shows how adamant they are about taking over the whole Linux ecosystem and tanking it.
But I will be far far away on either Gentoo, BSD, or some other alternative when this disaster strikes, so I can't wait to see the shit hit the fan.
I also read the criticism of systemd by people who are qualified to judge it on technical issues, and they seem to agree on the fact that it's not perfect, but basically works.
Sounds a lot like Windows, which seems to have yet another critical vulnerability every other patch cycle. Why was Debian the most successful project because it was taken over by Red Hat? Because they strove to make it perfect. There is a point to the pain in the labour - because otherwise, you just have a crappy platform that's full of holes, and which nobody understands which is a hacker's dream. Just wait and see - eventually, Red Hat will be reduced to an open source clone of Windows. That's great if all you care about is money and market share, but when it comes to getting shit done, those who want real assurance of stability, security and productivity will be doing something completely different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2015, @06:36PM
THIS.
It is the new blossoming openSSL project catastrophe ripe for the inevitable DOSing of the entirety of Linux at some point in the future.
Speaking of openSSL, SystemD might want to add that to the load of crap it handles, or at least contact the openSSL team and let them know SystemD needs to be one of their dependencies, because FUCK KNOWS WHY.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Saturday February 21 2015, @05:14AM
There are no technical advantages of any consequence, and if you think technical advantages are driving adoption you have not been paying attention. Politics is driving adoption and that is plain as day.
Disagree? Name one.
"If what you are saying is true, then the bug can be summarized as follows: when boot fails, logs are unavailable, period. What does it have to do with logs being binary or text?"
It has everything to do with binary logs vs text logs. When a system crashes with a text file open, the result is human recoverable and readable. When a system crashes with a binary file open, the same is not true.
The right way to do this, assuming there was someone with a compelling need for the binary logs in the first place (which may or may not be true,) would be to do the text log as primary, then mirror it to a binary log.
"I am not saying systemd is bug-free, I am just saying YOUR objections to it make no fucking sense to me."
You may need more experience before you will understand them. The design guarantees bugs, I dont need to wait around for 10 years for the bulk of them to be found to know that they are inevitable (or to anticipate that the cabal will WONTFIX the bulk of them.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?