Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive.
How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?
How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?
- Arch Linux
- Fedora/RHEL
- openSUSE/SLES
- Mageia
- NixOS
- CoreOS
- Sabayon
- Debian and Ubuntu in the near future
> Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive.
There's a vocal group that seem to think it's some Red Hat conspiracy to destroy Linux and take over the world. You don't hear the positives because people either don't care about init systems (as long as their distro continues to work) and happy programmers are generally silent on the issue.
The fact that the article says that Solaris is the 'best of breed stack right now' and also suggests CoreOS (apparently not knowing they use Systemd) should speak volumes...
I don't hate the registry... I'm just not in a hurry to see Linux adopt it. What's so bad about /etc/app/config or ~/.config/app/config? It works in pretty much every platform (though the paths may be slightly different). Windows does have both roaming and local data directories, which can be pretty nice (if you don't bloat them).
Yep, the Windows registry has its own ACL. Was bitten by that when trying (naively) to move an account's files between Windows installs. Logged in and found myself back at default settings, and changes not applying.
I wonder if this shift in mentality has something to do with the M-I contracts.
That well-known paragon of SysV systems 8)
Solaris is based off of Unix System V, as are AIX and HPUX.
You can be based off SysV without utilizing the init system from it
I have a hunch that for !RedHat, the motivation to switch comes just as much from not having to fight upstream (if not more so) than from systemd's relative merits. After all, there are plenty of different init systems, but only one of them is coupled to the rest of userspace to a significant degree.
Also, I wouldn't write off Solaris zones :) They're pretty powerful--in some ways, more so than LXC is today (syscall translation comes to mind).
In this case, we have red hat, lennart, Kay, and freedesktop.org working together to force a LGPL RPC loophole to circumvent the GPL. Sounds like an appropriate term.
systemd has both good aspects (e.g. faster boot times and removal of the nasty nest of shell scripts) as well as bad ones (incredibly monolithic). There are arguments on both sides of the fence. It's just that you're more likely to hear from people who dislike something than you are to hear from people that like it. (And at this point most of the systemd proponents have given up talking about it because of the incredibly vocal and relentless opposition.)
What one person finds nasty another may find sexy.
Most distros are yes. Some are not. Personally I like shell scripts and plan to continue using them as long as feasible. They work, and when/if they don't, I can usually find out why.
"Strong consensus" might be good argument for some people. I personally find it a fallacious appeal to popularity.
OpenRC does this quite nicely. Gentoo has been using it as the default init since at least 2011.
Redhat, Gnome and Pottering. While no-one can know exactly what they're thinking, it's in Redhat (and other commercial linux vendors') interest for more software to be more tightly coupled to linux and not run on other OSes. And Gnome is mostly developed by people who work for these commercial linux vendors (in a notable contrast to KDE, which has a wider spread of contributors, including more hobbyists and a number who are supported by government grants, particularly in Europe. Which leads to a different set of incentives).
My impression is that Gnome and associated software is, by and large, the wedge which is driving adoption in other distributions like Debian; previous "faster init" solutions were often available as options but never pushed to default because it wasn't necessary; users who wanted a different init could install one, but all their software would work fine either way.
http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2014/10/libinput-integ...
Systemd has been a replacement for the worst part of Linux, init. It was confusing and was just barely workable. It has been needing replacement for 5 or more years. There were SEVERAL solutions brought out and well more developers like SystemD more then the rest.
As a user in Arch Linux, OpenSUSE and Fedora it has been rock solid and I have been able to do things at my knowledge level much more consistent and lower level.
at my place we kept both journald and have rsyslog to redirect logs to the network. ie our /var/log is relatively empty (rsyslog isnt setup to log to disk) so we look at log on the machine via journald if needed (rarely - since we look at the central log aggregator instead)
That's a contradiction. You're running journald even if it's dead weight.
(and I like systemd, at least in theory - and running Fedora 20).
Religiously passionate salesmen, selling an upgrade to your car stereo, who conveniently forget to mention that you also have to replace your whole car.
> Who is driving SystemD adoption,
Kay Sievers, Harald Hoyer, Daniel Mack, Tom Gundersen, David Herrmann, and its creator, Lennart Poettering [1].
> and why?
One guy wanted to make booting his desktop faster. [2]
--
Later it was decided that systemd would be "a big opportunity for Linux standardization. Since it standardizes many interfaces of the system that previously have been differing on every distribution, on every implementation, adopting it helps to work against the balkanization of the Linux interfaces. Choosing systemd means redefining more closely what the Linux platform is about." [3] Basically, they want to change "how we put together Linux systems." [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Poettering [2] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html [3] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html [4] http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linu...
Tired of having to write init scripts for every distro, writing forking daemons, and dealing with the too simple syslog.
May be a bias in action. People who like it, or who really don't care much about it (I dislike journalctl, but, apart from that, I'm mostly OK with it) don't waste time writing how not much changed for them and how things continue to work as expected.
This lad seems really enthusiastic about systemd logging and systemctl:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/journalctl.html
There are a lot of interesting features, but personally I'd prefer to have both binary and text logging. Text logging is in cases where a system goes tits up and you may only have access to some basic tools such as grep, vi etc.
Companies like RedHat clearly drives systemd adoption, because it solve problems for their customers, that would be large enterprise customers. Many of those who dislike systemd has simpler requirements, so systemd becomes some new they need to learn, but it doesn't provide them with any tangible benefits. They didn't see or care about many of the problem or features that systemd address.
Of cause you're going to be negative if a new system, one you didn't need is forced upon you. If you're happy with it you're most likely a large company that doesn't blog about systemd, especially if it's something that just works.
At least that's my take on it.
Nevertheless, Red Hat and Canonical and others continue to try to foster desktop linux, on the now-obvious misguided theory that (a) the desktop matters and (b) they can take share from windows and osx installations.
As a result, there's hundreds of terrible paid desktop programmers, and thousands of their users, who are dying every day because, e.g., the last several iterations of wireless networking scripts were written by morons, their graphics libraries are comically bad, etc., etc.
Into this charged mix of total incompetence and frustration comes a small group of mediocre coders with hubris, backing, and political nous. And what they are promising to the long-abused desktop users sounds amazing to them, like wizardly magic, and literally, and almost entirely, boils down to this: freedom from having to deal with the shitty wireless networking script system. No joke. That is the fundamental issue at play, and the driver behind "faster boot times", "socket activation", and all of the other marketing points. If that idiot who wrote the wireless provisioning scripts had been competent, this entire mess would never have happened.
So the desktop linux users and desktop linux developers, who again have been living in a tiny cage being pooped on every day by their own regrettable choices, reach for this solution with the religious fervor of a drowning victim. And since desktop linux developers tend to be the C team, they don't care about good architecture, they just want things to work for them and their very specific desktop linux use case, which objectively and axiomatically, again, has not worked for decades and will never work.
So they band together in unison, following the exciting, energetic, charismatic and opinionated lead developer. And obviously, Red Hat is delighted, because that's their employee, and maybe they get more market share. And they pack Debian with developers, because there's a ton of horrible little desktop linux apps that grant them votes, and shout down the opposition. And they set up an IRC channel, and they brigade every forum with the same nonsensical attacks on the very architecture that made it possible for the internet to happen in the first place. Including, obviously, this very thread.
In actuality, this group of users is vanishingly tiny compared with the linux installed base, which is mostly phones and servers, where the real action is, and which don't need this halfassed dbus nonsense or the accreting blob of carelessly rewritten known-good-daemons. The desktop linux people are chasing a dead target with a terrible design and religious fervor substituted for technical ability. It will be intriguing to watch it play out. FreeBSD is about to get a big positive jolt of people that know what 'good' is.
For me, I plan to stay as far away from systemd as I can; it's an abomination of software design.