Jump to content

Debian Decides on systemd


Recommended Posts

amenditman

Are there any non-linux kernels they currently support and if so, what does this mean for them?

systemd is specifically for use with many features of the linux kernel and the big developers have no interest in trying to make it a universal tool.

 

The project page lists a huge range of hardware and projects that Debian runs on. The one that jumps out at me from the list is kFreeBSD. Anyone know if it runs on a linux kernel?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
V.T. Eric Layton

Debian going with Systemd? I shocked. SHOCKED, I tells ya'. I never would have believed this could happen. Next thing you know, Slackware will start using a graphic login screen. What the H3LL is GNU/Linux coming to? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not shocked at all. The decision was probably based on disenchantment with Canonical's CLAs that turned people from upstart, as much as any technical considerations. See Greg Kroah-Hartman's G+ page.

systemd seems to be working fine in siduction, and I haven't heard any complaints from the Archers around here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
amenditman

systemd seems to be working fine in siduction, and I haven't heard any complaints from the Archers around here.

It takes a real effort and mental shift to get used to, it is very different.

Once you get used to it, it's technical merits (and demerits) will win you over.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
V.T. Eric Layton

Well, having been one of the first here at Scot's to take the systemd plunge a couple years back (in Arch), I can attest to its stability and efficiency. It's not a bad change at all for Linux. I'm sure it's even more gooder nowadays than when I was experimenting with it. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
amenditman

Whoosh! The whole thing is really over my head. All I know is that I haven't had any problems with systemd in Arch.

We better all hope it stays that way.

The biggest problem with systemd is that it is designed to be used without much (any?) ability to fix it when it breaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

We better all hope it stays that way.

The biggest problem with systemd is that it is designed to be used without much (any?) ability to fix it when it breaks.

 

That does not make me feel better about this ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
saturnian

I'm thinking that if Debian goes with systemd, users aren't gonna have much to worry about by the time it gets into Stable. How often does anything in Stable break?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be aware that this decision is not set in stone yet. It is voting (which closes on Feb 15) by the Technical Committee to decide on a recommendation which can still be overruled by a General Referendum.

Having used it for a little while now, I would be quite happy to see systemd as default. It has some great features. Upstart reportedly still has some technical deficiencies as well as legal ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
abarbarian

If they go with Upstart and its tie ins with Ubuntu it will not be a good move in my opinion. As to the user not being able to fix systemd folk did not really have the ability to fix udev either so no win or loss there.By fix I mean the main program ie: systemd and udev, you can still tweak and individualise both programs at a user level. The systemd in Arch seems pretty bullet proof from my limited use of it.

If you strip things back to the bare bones Canonical are using the community to improve their products for free and are trying to steer development in a fashion that will firstly benefit them.If they had there way every one would be using the one and only linux and they would be pulling the strings, reminiscent of the bad old days when Redmond ruled the world.

:breakfast:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it have to be systemd or upstart at all. It works great as it is, doesn't it?

I think sysvinit is perceived to functionally ok and they want to get away from what I call 'the procmail problem'.

nothing (or close to nothing) is done with the software as it works okay and then it just settles in and can't get budged, warts and all

Link to post
Share on other sites
V.T. Eric Layton

That does not make me feel better about this ...

 

That's also Patrick Volkerding's concern. That all is being accomplished by a bunch of daemons in a list. Individual control, troubleshooting, modification is not Unix-like in that method. Too much is being handled by one cog in the machine with systemd.

 

With Sysvinit, you had multiple testable/editable scripts controlling multiple aspects of the system. One may break, but not all break at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites
amenditman

One of the flaws of systemd is that a lot of it is compiled and the average sysadmin can't read or fix it if it doesn't work.

That said, it is fairly robust and has worked well for me in Arch, Debian Testing, and Fedora.

 

With SysVinit, it was all scripts and anyone could read it and modify it easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

Yes, by having different scripts for different parts using SysVinit, breakage is limited to the specific area, not everything. I actually prefer that, it feels almost, but not quite, a modular way to do things.

 

I know they will be moving us to different things but I prefer it be with Debian because it will have to be truly stable before Debian puts it in the Stable builds.

 

They are very picky about that as Saturnian said earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
V.T. Eric Layton

Sure Debian is famous for waiting till software is nearly stale and dead before allowing it into their main repos. However, in this case, Debian is going to be adding system controlling software that is maintained by a group unaffiliated with Debian. That just seems so NOT THE DEBIAN WAY. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

I agree with the Debian way. It is not nearly stale and dead before allowed into Stable repos. But they are very sure it's stable.

 

When I want to use a more bleeding edge I can use Unstable/Sid, or another Distro. I like that my 'production' computer is truly Stable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
saturnian

I agree with the Debian way. It is not nearly stale and dead before allowed into Stable repos.

 

I feel the same. Not being "latest-and-greatest" doesn't mean "stale and dead."

Link to post
Share on other sites
securitybreach

Well the author is wrong on one thing for sure. Systemd does not require a reboot to upgrade. A simple systemctl daemon-reload, which scans for new or changed units, takes care of service updates. If the author got that simple thing wrong, then it discredits the entire article IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
abarbarian

I do not know a great deal about the inner workings of linux and am a very inexperienced linux user.

 

However I do think that folks would find these articles of interest with regard to this discussion. Reading them in order would be I feel most advantageous.

 

A comparison of the main init systems. Worthy of note are the preferred service file providers.

 

https://wiki.gentoo....of_init_systems

 

The wiki for the Udev service. Systemd is closely tied in with udev and this is quite a large factor in the controversy. Worth a mention and a read up on the background to Hal's part in this affair.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udev

 

This excellent article about systemd written by a Gentoo user.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udev

 

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I didn’t migrated to systemd because I dislike openRC or have any issues with it. I just wanted to get my hands dirty with systemd and learn from the whole procedure. I still have openRC to some of my boxes.

 

An finally this very informative article which delves in some fine detail around the pros and cons of systemd.

 

http://allanmcrae.co...-in-arch-linux/

 

 

For those who came here looking for the solution to the systemd “problem” in Arch Linux, this is not the article you are looking for. I care very little about my init system beyond that it should successfully boot my computer and start the software I need it to start. In fact, my entire understanding of the boot process goes “Push button… *MAGIC* …prompt”, so taking advice from me on the boot-up process may not be the best idea…

However, what I do know about is the Arch Linux packaging system and how to put together a Linux distribution. So I am going to discuss how people would go about providing all the tools to run an init system that is not systemd in Arch Linux. Many lessons will be taken from how systemd was provided in Arch Linux; firstly as a community based projected and then as official packages providing a secondary init choice in the repos. From what I see from current efforts, people seem slightly naive about what is required and are completely ignoring what has gone previous.

 

B)

Edited by abarbarian
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

Well the author is wrong on one thing for sure. Systemd does not require a reboot to upgrade. A simple systemctl daemon-reload, which scans for new or changed units, takes care of service updates. If the author got that simple thing wrong, then it discredits the entire article IMO.

 

Doesn't discredit the whole article, but does make it so one would have to check each point ... not a bad thing. ;)

 

I'm wondering if "legacy" sysvinit will be an option for Debian users.

 

Yes, I too would prefer sysvinit at least till things have gotten truly stable with systemd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Broken by design: systemd": http://ewontfix.com/14/

Also, check out the comments following the article.

 

Scott Dowdle

6 hours ago

This review reminds me of all of the recent activity regarding the Beatles in the US. There was much ado about how they were on the Ed Sullivan show 50 years ago. Humorously a significant number of reviews from their first performance said they were horrible, that their singing abilities were anti-musical and that they were doomed to failure. A lot of the anti-systemd stuff both in the main article and in the comments remind me of that... and I think this nonsense is going to hurt systemd and its adoption about as much as those reviews hurt the Beatles. It is a simple analogy and no one needs to drag it out beyond that. :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...