Re: [PLUG] systemd
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:29:19AM -0800, Ronald Chmara wrote: > The older init systems have had a bunch of problems, and workarounds, built > into them over the years. > > A newer init system attempted to solve a bunch of problems, and in doing > so, broke with established conventions, so it both fixed stuff, and broke > stuff. The systemd init system is the, IMAO, sensible part of it. The systemd handling of messages from services, what we used to get from log files, is what, IMEO, what drives me batty. Message review, retrieval, filtering are now, again IMAO, needlessly complex and fiddly. All of the above may be curable by my spending more time with systemd. For someone who combined tail, grep, and other tools to review and analyze log files the journalctl system is painful. Again, exposure time to it may provide the cure. -- Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity I measure journeys in sticky buns - fat, lurid, sticky buns. ~ Cross country bike tourist Leo Woodland ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Denis Heidtmann wrote: > To me, an uninformed and basically ignorant Linux user, this exchange > appears to be an argument (sometimes nasty) between two philosophers. > Because, as is the case in all philosophical arguments, the vocabulary is > esoteric I cannot profit from reading the dialog. Not to say that my lack > of understanding is typical of other readers. > > Are there any readers of this discussion having a suitable pedagogical bent > willing to present the issues to those needing education? > The older init systems have had a bunch of problems, and workarounds, built into them over the years. A newer init system attempted to solve a bunch of problems, and in doing so, broke with established conventions, so it both fixed stuff, and broke stuff. There is a lot of argument over the importance and value of the fixes, individually, and in aggregate, as well as the breaks, individually and in aggregate. Beyond that, I can't really do justice to explaining the arguments without weighing in (even accidentally) with opinions... suffice to say that because the init system is a very broadly used portion of the operating system, it has a very large number of user opinions that come with it. -Ronabop ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd
To me, an uninformed and basically ignorant Linux user, this exchange appears to be an argument (sometimes nasty) between two philosophers. Because, as is the case in all philosophical arguments, the vocabulary is esoteric I cannot profit from reading the dialog. Not to say that my lack of understanding is typical of other readers. Are there any readers of this discussion having a suitable pedagogical bent willing to present the issues to those needing education? -Denis On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:03 PM, benjamin barber wrote: > The overuse of metaphors and lack of specificity is used to make truisms > appear to be insightful. As i understand there are several init systems > that were able to 'fix' what was wrong with SysV init. However what is not > made readily apparent is an init system needs encompass gobbling up network > configuration, user logins, the shell, and standard error. It also seems > reasonable to suspect that this exposes a large attack surface, which could > render the malicious code nearly opaque to inspection from outside. This is > the same sort of design philosphy which lead to the issues in windows with > privilege escalation to begin with. Furthermore we saw the same thing > happen to pulseaudio, where it became and still is a giant mess (i have to > run pulseaudio -k several times daily for bluetooth), which was foisted on > the community haphazardly. > > http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0// > > Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd architecture for > real-world service management, a technical treatise > > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:20 PM, wrote: > > > > I disagree. I thought Keith's comments were insightful and echo a lot of > my concerns and experiences with systemd. IMHO, distributions are far too > cavalier about introducing fundamental changes that end up breaking stuff. > > > > [top-posting against my better judgment] > > > > -- > > David Fleck > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "benjamin barber" > > To: "Keith Lofstrom" , "Portland Linux/Unix Group" < > plug@lists.pdxlinux.org> > > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd > > > > This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the > > substantitive questions. > > > > For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as > > DHCPd. ? > > > > also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the > unix > > philosophy ? > > > > quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - > > extinguish. > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Keith Lofstrom > > wrote: > > > > > Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems > > > compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed > > > with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the > > > burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us. > > > > > > While glittery shiny first impressions are nice, pain rules > > > our long term reaction to new things. A distro that is easy > > > 90% of the time and ridiculously difficult 10% of the time is > > > less likely to endure than something that is 30% easy and 1% > > > difficult. Change is never easy, and migration is difficult. > > > > > > For me, a computer is a structure that I embellish with my own > > > data, procedures, adaptions, and improvements. Changing the > > > structure means I must translate all of that, without help. > > > > > > It's like replacing the wooden beams of my house with carbon > > > fiber. That might help in an earthquake, but the cost of > > > the transition would be more devastating than an earthquake. > > > Instead, I added kludges and retrofits to achieve the same > > > earthquake protection. Build new houses with carbon fiber if > > > you wish, but don't abandon the installed base that is better > > > improved than replaced. If you must change house structure, > > > make your carbon fiber install cheap and painless. > > > > > > We invest in our computers, and change invalidates many of our > > > investments. If those who wish to impose these changes had > > > to pay the full cost of their decisions, and help us recoup > > > our lost investments, they would make different decisions, > > > and provide tools that facilitate change and adaption. > > > > > > This is an opportunity
Re: [PLUG] systemd
So I was sent this off list, I will let the rest of you imply why that is. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Keith Lofstrom wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:27:51PM -0800, benjamin barber wrote: > > This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the > > substantitive questions. > > > > For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as > > DHCPd. ? > > I am not bothering to reply on the list. I am writing to you personally > because the attitude you express is barbaric. > Are you implying that its "barbaric" to question an engineering choice that has actual security implications? is this the same sort of "linus is a toxic" rhetoric I hear frequently? And the "we need a safe space from any sort of criticism that makes us feel bad" philosophy. Lets say there is some security vulnerability with DHCPd, and I am able to execute arbirtrary code to get SU access, I can then make the infection opaque to outside inspection, as now you have malicious code that controls every part of the inputs and outputs of the system. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf > > The world does not revolve around init systems, su, and DHCPd. If you > want to change how init works, YOU will have to contribute to the work > that helps make the transition a painless path for people who don't > give a rats ass about such things, who merely want what worked for > them last week to mostly work a decade from now. Like everything else > in their lives that is designed by competent engineers and craftspeople. > > Instead of say a bunch of financial interests in the industry forcing out a new standard, which then breaks compatibility so that everyone else must conform to, because of a myriad of broken dependencies without backwards compatibility. Which has effectively put a moat around the implementation of the linux kernel used by the majority of the community, meanwhile abandoning the concept of the linux standard base and forcing devs into 'lennartix', while also destroying software compatibility with BSD variants. > There are many suitable replacements for the older linux startup > system, and systemd can be one of those replacements, IF its > proponents do the work of (1) bringing it to the same completeness > level as the old system, and (2) provide the tools for 99% of users > to make the transition effortlessly. I am willing to throw 1% of > the users off the boat, but not 50%. > In reality only systemd can be one of those replacements, because people in redhat and canonical decided it was so, despite alot of objections from users and devs, while being less 'complete' than an aggregate of independent modules, which could have been modularly upgraded/replaced instead software made incompatible with "lennartix" dependencies. > > If you think systemd is effortless for that 99% (or even for 50%), > show me the data. The anectdotal evidence I've seen (very smart > people like Russell who hack kernels for fun) is that systemd in > its current pre-alpha state breaks important stuff. Core software > should not be mass-released without mass testing on the same group > of people it is intended for. > I don't think its effortless, its broken alot of my embedded software stuff, and I agree that it shouldn't have been pushed out early, much less chosen as a default that violates the unix philosophy and backwards compatibility. > > In my version of hell, those who would enforce such changes on the > vast majority who have other talents than deep sysadmin should get > all their wall sockets changed to something safer but incompatable > with any existing device plug. If they want to plug anything in, > they should design and build new adapters with hand tools. Then > they might realize the value of decades-old standards, and realize > that improvements can be made that are back-compatable and schedulable. > Agreed, standards and backward compatibility are important for the longevity of software and data, the tech industry needs to think about reliability and stability in terms of centuries instead of decades. I hear far too much about reinventing the wheel constantly, because someone wants to put their name on a shiny new thing, instead of improving stability, reliability and performance of existing systems. > But then, you may not give a rip about the troubles faced by others, > even the troubles you instigate. Google for "sociopath". > > Because clearly anyone who are blunt are disingenuous sociopaths, it doesn't matter how many selfless things they do, they disagreed with someone on the internet the wrong way. > > also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the > unix > > philosophy ? > > quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - > > extinguish. > > Unless you haven't noticed, there have been a quite a few... opportunists in the open source movement. You for
Re: [PLUG] systemd
The overuse of metaphors and lack of specificity is used to make truisms appear to be insightful. As i understand there are several init systems that were able to 'fix' what was wrong with SysV init. However what is not made readily apparent is an init system needs encompass gobbling up network configuration, user logins, the shell, and standard error. It also seems reasonable to suspect that this exposes a large attack surface, which could render the malicious code nearly opaque to inspection from outside. This is the same sort of design philosphy which lead to the issues in windows with privilege escalation to begin with. Furthermore we saw the same thing happen to pulseaudio, where it became and still is a giant mess (i have to run pulseaudio -k several times daily for bluetooth), which was foisted on the community haphazardly. http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0// Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd architecture for real-world service management, a technical treatise On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:20 PM, wrote: > > I disagree. I thought Keith's comments were insightful and echo a lot of my concerns and experiences with systemd. IMHO, distributions are far too cavalier about introducing fundamental changes that end up breaking stuff. > > [top-posting against my better judgment] > > -- > David Fleck > > > - Original Message - > From: "benjamin barber" > To: "Keith Lofstrom" , "Portland Linux/Unix Group" < plug@lists.pdxlinux.org> > Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM > Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd > > This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the > substantitive questions. > > For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as > DHCPd. ? > > also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the unix > philosophy ? > > quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - > extinguish. > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Keith Lofstrom > wrote: > > > Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems > > compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed > > with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the > > burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us. > > > > While glittery shiny first impressions are nice, pain rules > > our long term reaction to new things. A distro that is easy > > 90% of the time and ridiculously difficult 10% of the time is > > less likely to endure than something that is 30% easy and 1% > > difficult. Change is never easy, and migration is difficult. > > > > For me, a computer is a structure that I embellish with my own > > data, procedures, adaptions, and improvements. Changing the > > structure means I must translate all of that, without help. > > > > It's like replacing the wooden beams of my house with carbon > > fiber. That might help in an earthquake, but the cost of > > the transition would be more devastating than an earthquake. > > Instead, I added kludges and retrofits to achieve the same > > earthquake protection. Build new houses with carbon fiber if > > you wish, but don't abandon the installed base that is better > > improved than replaced. If you must change house structure, > > make your carbon fiber install cheap and painless. > > > > We invest in our computers, and change invalidates many of our > > investments. If those who wish to impose these changes had > > to pay the full cost of their decisions, and help us recoup > > our lost investments, they would make different decisions, > > and provide tools that facilitate change and adaption. > > > > This is an opportunity hiding in a problem, for sane profit- > > seeking entrepreneurs (if there are any left in our community). > > Focusing on the needs of humans, rather than the needs of the > > machines. Modelling change against the entire installed base, > > instead of a couple dozen configurations favored by developers. > > > > At a guess, linux designed for low cost mass deployment and long > > term stability might make new development five times harder for > > developers, almost cost-free for customers, and thus 100x cheaper > > overall, assuming millions of customers willing to pay a little > > something to avoid pain. For those of us ready to graduate from > > "gratis" Linux to "least total cost" Linux, a new distro to fill > > the role that Redhat used to fill (stodgy but predictable) would > > be welcomed, and could be very profitable. > > > > Keith > > &
Re: [PLUG] systemd
I disagree. I thought Keith's comments were insightful and echo a lot of my concerns and experiences with systemd. IMHO, distributions are far too cavalier about introducing fundamental changes that end up breaking stuff. [top-posting against my better judgment] -- David Fleck - Original Message - From: "benjamin barber" To: "Keith Lofstrom" , "Portland Linux/Unix Group" Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:27:51 PM Subject: Re: [PLUG] systemd This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the substantitive questions. For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as DHCPd. ? also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the unix philosophy ? quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - extinguish. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Keith Lofstrom wrote: > Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems > compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed > with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the > burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us. > > While glittery shiny first impressions are nice, pain rules > our long term reaction to new things. A distro that is easy > 90% of the time and ridiculously difficult 10% of the time is > less likely to endure than something that is 30% easy and 1% > difficult. Change is never easy, and migration is difficult. > > For me, a computer is a structure that I embellish with my own > data, procedures, adaptions, and improvements. Changing the > structure means I must translate all of that, without help. > > It's like replacing the wooden beams of my house with carbon > fiber. That might help in an earthquake, but the cost of > the transition would be more devastating than an earthquake. > Instead, I added kludges and retrofits to achieve the same > earthquake protection. Build new houses with carbon fiber if > you wish, but don't abandon the installed base that is better > improved than replaced. If you must change house structure, > make your carbon fiber install cheap and painless. > > We invest in our computers, and change invalidates many of our > investments. If those who wish to impose these changes had > to pay the full cost of their decisions, and help us recoup > our lost investments, they would make different decisions, > and provide tools that facilitate change and adaption. > > This is an opportunity hiding in a problem, for sane profit- > seeking entrepreneurs (if there are any left in our community). > Focusing on the needs of humans, rather than the needs of the > machines. Modelling change against the entire installed base, > instead of a couple dozen configurations favored by developers. > > At a guess, linux designed for low cost mass deployment and long > term stability might make new development five times harder for > developers, almost cost-free for customers, and thus 100x cheaper > overall, assuming millions of customers willing to pay a little > something to avoid pain. For those of us ready to graduate from > "gratis" Linux to "least total cost" Linux, a new distro to fill > the role that Redhat used to fill (stodgy but predictable) would > be welcomed, and could be very profitable. > > Keith > > -- > Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com > ___ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015, benjamin barber wrote: > quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - > extinguish. It is important to keep in mind that while all progress involves change, not all change involves progress. Rich ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd
This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the substantitive questions. For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as DHCPd. ? also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the unix philosophy ? quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - extinguish. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Keith Lofstrom wrote: > Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems > compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed > with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the > burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us. > > While glittery shiny first impressions are nice, pain rules > our long term reaction to new things. A distro that is easy > 90% of the time and ridiculously difficult 10% of the time is > less likely to endure than something that is 30% easy and 1% > difficult. Change is never easy, and migration is difficult. > > For me, a computer is a structure that I embellish with my own > data, procedures, adaptions, and improvements. Changing the > structure means I must translate all of that, without help. > > It's like replacing the wooden beams of my house with carbon > fiber. That might help in an earthquake, but the cost of > the transition would be more devastating than an earthquake. > Instead, I added kludges and retrofits to achieve the same > earthquake protection. Build new houses with carbon fiber if > you wish, but don't abandon the installed base that is better > improved than replaced. If you must change house structure, > make your carbon fiber install cheap and painless. > > We invest in our computers, and change invalidates many of our > investments. If those who wish to impose these changes had > to pay the full cost of their decisions, and help us recoup > our lost investments, they would make different decisions, > and provide tools that facilitate change and adaption. > > This is an opportunity hiding in a problem, for sane profit- > seeking entrepreneurs (if there are any left in our community). > Focusing on the needs of humans, rather than the needs of the > machines. Modelling change against the entire installed base, > instead of a couple dozen configurations favored by developers. > > At a guess, linux designed for low cost mass deployment and long > term stability might make new development five times harder for > developers, almost cost-free for customers, and thus 100x cheaper > overall, assuming millions of customers willing to pay a little > something to avoid pain. For those of us ready to graduate from > "gratis" Linux to "least total cost" Linux, a new distro to fill > the role that Redhat used to fill (stodgy but predictable) would > be welcomed, and could be very profitable. > > Keith > > -- > Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com > ___ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd
Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us. While glittery shiny first impressions are nice, pain rules our long term reaction to new things. A distro that is easy 90% of the time and ridiculously difficult 10% of the time is less likely to endure than something that is 30% easy and 1% difficult. Change is never easy, and migration is difficult. For me, a computer is a structure that I embellish with my own data, procedures, adaptions, and improvements. Changing the structure means I must translate all of that, without help. It's like replacing the wooden beams of my house with carbon fiber. That might help in an earthquake, but the cost of the transition would be more devastating than an earthquake. Instead, I added kludges and retrofits to achieve the same earthquake protection. Build new houses with carbon fiber if you wish, but don't abandon the installed base that is better improved than replaced. If you must change house structure, make your carbon fiber install cheap and painless. We invest in our computers, and change invalidates many of our investments. If those who wish to impose these changes had to pay the full cost of their decisions, and help us recoup our lost investments, they would make different decisions, and provide tools that facilitate change and adaption. This is an opportunity hiding in a problem, for sane profit- seeking entrepreneurs (if there are any left in our community). Focusing on the needs of humans, rather than the needs of the machines. Modelling change against the entire installed base, instead of a couple dozen configurations favored by developers. At a guess, linux designed for low cost mass deployment and long term stability might make new development five times harder for developers, almost cost-free for customers, and thus 100x cheaper overall, assuming millions of customers willing to pay a little something to avoid pain. For those of us ready to graduate from "gratis" Linux to "least total cost" Linux, a new distro to fill the role that Redhat used to fill (stodgy but predictable) would be welcomed, and could be very profitable. Keith -- Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
[PLUG] systemd fun
> "Russell" == Russell Senior writes: > "benjamin" == benjamin barber writes: benjamin> what would be great, is a debate about systemd Russell> That would seem to require the existance of someone who Russell> understood how it worked, in practice, not just in theory. I Russell> have yet to find such a person. I recently installed ArchLinux on a server, which uses systemd. The machine has RAID1 arrays and a lvm2 device providing /home. Recently, I lost parts of one of drives. At some point it hung and I rebooted, when it came back up, it complained about /home not being available and dropped me to a recovery root login prompt. I'm not sure why it hung on a missing /home. Had it progressed, I could have patched things up over the network. Even after I fixed up the RAID, systemd was still unhappy. I could login from a console, run vgchange -a y and exit and then the network would come up and I'd get a working system. Untangling that will wait until I need to reboot again. I like systemd in theory. It's the practice that I find problematic. -- Russell Senior, President russ...@personaltelco.net ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd, an improvement? - argument for
They forked Debian because of systemd.., that should give anyone pause: https://devuan.org Also, there is the bit that systemd is lgpl. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Michael Rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:34:14PM -0800, Louis Kowolowski wrote: > > After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that > systemd is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people > running CentOS 7 on servers yet? > > https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530 > > You'll need to scroll down a page to the Benefits: bit. Though the > listing of arguments against has some funny bits. > > Summary: > Hotplug capable > knowable system state > modular > allows dbus/udev to return to their original purpose > reduces number of explicit ordering dependencies > provides sandboxing features > systemd service files can be written without distribution > implementation knowledge. > systemd is a cross-distro project, creation team had deep background > ... > > > -- > Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon > Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity > The difference betwee a million and a billion is the difference between > a sip of wine and 30 seconds with your daughter, and a bottle of gin and a > night with her. > ~ XKCD http://xkcd.com/558/ > ___ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > -- Darren R. Couch dco...@gmail.com ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd, an improvement? - argument for
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:34:14PM -0800, Louis Kowolowski wrote: > After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd > is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7 > on servers yet? https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530 You'll need to scroll down a page to the Benefits: bit. Though the listing of arguments against has some funny bits. Summary: Hotplug capable knowable system state modular allows dbus/udev to return to their original purpose reduces number of explicit ordering dependencies provides sandboxing features systemd service files can be written without distribution implementation knowledge. systemd is a cross-distro project, creation team had deep background ... -- Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity The difference betwee a million and a billion is the difference between a sip of wine and 30 seconds with your daughter, and a bottle of gin and a night with her. ~ XKCD http://xkcd.com/558/ ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
Re: [PLUG] systemd, an improvement?
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Louis Kowolowski wrote: After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7 on servers yet? I've got CentOS 7 and Fedora 19 on servers, so I've been working with systemd for a while. It didn't take me all that long to revamp my cfengine rules to deal with systemd; the rulesets are similar: "/sbin/service" args => "sendmail condrestart"; becomes "/bin/systemctl" args => "restart sendmail.service"; I don't yet understand all the ins and outs of systemd. I have a good handle on the .service units, but the others (.mount, .path, .scope, .socket, .device, and even .target) are still works in progress. The systemctl binary, while not intuitive at all, is easy to learn and provides a consistent interface to things. I do not miss init scripts at all. The boycott page conveniently overlooks all the init scripts that broke, badly, when Ubuntu decided to make /bin/sh a version of dash rather than bash. System V on modern Linux systems is very tool-dependent as well. I'm not a fan of journald and I always setup rsyslog to ensure I have text log files, but that's the only long-term downside I've encountered so far. One of my holiday projects is doing the systemd version of Linux From Scratch, just so I have a better basic understanding of its capabilities and competencies. I like the possibilities of systemd, but I can see the downsides as well. At this point, I don't see any reason whatsoever to get all worked up about the change. It seems to work, which is all that I ask of it. -- Paul Heinlein heinl...@madboa.com 45°38' N, 122°6' W___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
[PLUG] systemd, an improvement?
After reading http://boycottsystemd.org, I’m curious who thinks that systemd is an improvement for servers, and if so why/how. Are people running CentOS 7 on servers yet? — Louis Kowolowskilou...@cryptomonkeys.org Cryptomonkeys: http://www.cryptomonkeys.com/ Making life more interesting for people since 1977 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
