Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the entirely-uncontroversial-opinions dept.

Operating Systems 613

snydeq writes: Ultimately, the schism over systemd could lead to a separation of desktop and server distros, or Linux server admins moving to FreeBSD, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. "Although there are those who think the systemd debate has been decided in favor of systemd, the exceedingly loud protests on message boards, forums, and the posts I wrote over the past two weeks would indicate otherwise. I've seen many declarations of victory for systemd, now that Red Hat has forced it into the enterprise with the release of RHEL 7. I don't think it's that easy. ... Go ahead, kids, spackle over all of that unsightly runlevel stuff. Paint over init and cron, pam and login. Put all of that into PID1 along with dbus. Make it all pretty and whisper sweet nothings about how it's all taken care of and you won't have to read a manual or learn any silly command-line stuff. Tune your distribution for desktop workloads. Go reinvent Windows."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

server admins moving to FreeBSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811593)

nope.
not evah.
no way.

Re:server admins moving to FreeBSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811679)

nope. not evah. no way.

What, your acting like it's dead or something...

Re:server admins moving to FreeBSD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811779)

something something netcraft?

Debian general resolution needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812281)

A general resolution against systemd as the debian default needs to be raised. Please go to debian-user and debian-vote and debian-dev and get the six votes needed to start a general resolution. The systemd people will of purse try to have you banned and your messages deleted as trolling.

What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 3 months ago | (#47811597)

What's wrong with services.msc on a Windows Server machine? Any serious answers from people who actually used it?

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (4, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 3 months ago | (#47811641)

Nothing really. It's just different. All of this sounds remotely familiar to the System V wars aka UNIX wars of the late 80s and early 90s. [wikipedia.org]
That didn't solve much either except it allowed a company from Washington dominate servers and high-end desktops for awhile because it wasn't caught up in all of the holy war shit.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (3, Insightful)

machineghost (622031) | about 3 months ago | (#47811661)

Ummmm ... it's closed source. I'm sure there are lots of other good reasons, but do you really need anything more than that?

Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811829)

We're you planning to edit the source? I wasn't.

Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811859)

I have found quite a few spots I would like to tweak and recompile

Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812081)

Oh G-d yes! I wish I could default to not have the "descriptive" column show, which just wastes space.

Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (4, Informative)

machineghost (622031) | about 3 months ago | (#47812209)

I'm not either, but that's hardly the point. Let's say something isn't documented properly and doesn't work the way I expect: just being able to read the source code can be extremely helpful.

But it goes even beyond that, because open source software naturally forms communities around it. Even if I were to never even look at a single line of the source, the fact that it's availble to others adds value for me. I can go download a patch someone else wrote that fixes a bug MS hasn't bothered to fix. I can ask someone who's read the code how it works on Stack Overflow. Or when someone uses that source as a basis for an entirely new and improved version, I can switch to that.

Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

Provocateur (133110) | about 3 months ago | (#47812233)

good, because the use of we're raises some concern...

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811887)

Hahhaaaaa you stupid idiot, you thought that ass kissing would get you Slashdot mod point, and all it got you was FLAME!

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1, Interesting)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 3 months ago | (#47812189)

Haha, that is pretty funny. For the first time in several years, i have bad karma myself. It's quite enjoyable to offer contrary opinions on subjects as varied as global warming to police shootings to lindows. Yup, having good karma kinda started making me feel old. (Which i am). Now i don't consider my way of thinking any more valid than any other lost soul on slashdot. But it seems poking blowhards with sticks is quite enjoyable. The real question now is what are we going to call the linux registery. (I mean the part after the 'K-' or 'G-'. I always thought windows would make a linux version mainly because as we have seen, having the linux folks reinvent windows is taking longer than planned. You should not be surprised what some people at MS can do to a version of windows (Me, Vista) especially when compared to what Iomega has done to debian5. Yeah xml config files! Systemd is going to be great once they are done with it. Which will be never. This might be the break BSD needs to take the desktop from linux. LOL mofos.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (2)

machineghost (622031) | about 3 months ago | (#47812259)

Have you ever noticed how sometimes when people say something about someone else, it winds up revealing more about them than the person being talked about?

Here's what your post seems to reveal to me:

1) You think insulting (and not even cleverly at that) random people on the internet is a good use of your time
2) You think that there is no legitimate reason to support open source software, and therefore all support for it is "ass-kissing"
3) You think Slashdot posters are motivated to post what they write to try by "forum points", not their beliefs
4) You think that someone getting a flamebait vote is some kind of great kharmic vengence

I'd encourage you to challenge those assumptions; in my view none of them are true.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812321)

That's a long way to say that you don't know and probably don't even care. You merely mentioned that the OS isn't FOSS which everybody here already knows, while not answering the actual question. Thank you for wasting everyone's time.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (2)

taustin (171655) | about 3 months ago | (#47811673)

The only legitimate complaint is that Windows requires beefier hardware to do the same job. Other than that, it's a matter of preference, and advantages for specific tasks.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 3 months ago | (#47811749)

Not having to manage licensing... is a gift all its own. I'm not talking about not buying licenses, I mean not having to deal with ANY of that shit for servers... a blessing.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811837)

Not having to manage licensing... is a gift all its own. I'm not talking about not buying licenses, I mean not having to deal with ANY of that shit for servers... a blessing.

THIS is the reason I build so many linux servers. When you compare costs of a typical Windows based small business server vs a linux server, linux wins hands down. Unless there is a very specific reason to run a windows based server, I always run linux servers. No licenses to keep track of, no extra up front software expenses.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about 3 months ago | (#47811889)

You still have to license RHEL if you intend to have support. I suppose if you don't mind going at it your own...

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (4, Interesting)

PRMan (959735) | about 3 months ago | (#47811995)

I've never used the "Support" on any Linux box yet. And almost never on Windows either. It's quicker to look it up yourself. In fact, out of the 3 times I called Microsoft Support, twice I got refunded for figuring it out while on the phone with the "experts".

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

Korgan (101803) | about 3 months ago | (#47812003)

You still have to license RHEL if you intend to have support. I suppose if you don't mind going at it your own...

You're not licensing RHEL, you're licensing a support agreement for 12 months. There's a pedantic difference.

The difficulty with RHEL is that if you want to run it without support, you have to compile it yourself. They do not release binaries outside of their support agreements. Which is why CentOS (and others) exists in its current implementation.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812219)

Having used RedHat support (actually, I was trying to get upstream - RedHat - to fix a race-condition on startup that I had a viable workaround for), I can say from the bottom of my heart, it is about the biggest waste of money ever. Think of it as un-support or anti-support.

Not only did they not implement the workaround, they rendered it ineffective and changed a 1/10 chance of triggereing the race condition into a 1/4.

Oh sure, I'll use that support again. Now I just keep my workarounds to RedHat introduced problems to myself. SystemD anyone?

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | about 3 months ago | (#47812223)

I use Debian you insensitive clod!

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811815)

The only legitimate complaint is that Windows requires beefier hardware to do the same job. Other than that, it's a matter of preference, and advantages for specific tasks.

Do you have any backing for that?

With windows server core the OS doesn't really take up any cycles. No gui, just a console and remote admin.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 3 months ago | (#47811867)

It definitely makes a difference when I tested software RAID at home, but I doubt "real" servers bother with the Windows storage software stack. It also used a bit more RAM under load, but not enough to be a dealbreaker.

What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Informative)

Brian Beaudoin (2848525) | about 3 months ago | (#47811701)

My experiences with systemd have been good and I can see how it can eliminate some of the kludges I've relied on in the past. Rather than have an /etc/init.d/myservice restart all related services to ensure a "clean" environment, I can list dependencies and triggers and rely on the system to do what is appropriate. It doesn't eliminate the ability to create or use System V init scripts, it just provides administrators with an alternative. Given the distribution creators have put a lot of effort into converting their scripts we have a lot of examples to work from. I've been working with UNIX since the 80's and rather than adopt a "get off my lawn" mentality I'm looking forward to embracing solutions to modern problems and see this as a positive step forward.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

DoomSprinkles (1933266) | about 3 months ago | (#47811849)

Correct but I think the reason there's so much pushback is because it wont be long before it's not just an alternative with backward compatibility and it becomes the only way. Stepping us in that direction.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (4, Funny)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 3 months ago | (#47811937)

Oh the horror! Imagine skills that transfer across Linux distributions! I won't LIVE in such a world!

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812273)

systemd changed the long-standing behavior of unmounting an rbind-mounted mount.

Since time immemorial, on every Linux system, if you rbind-mounted a directory (A) that had contained mount (B) into some other directory (C), did work in C, and then umounted C, A and B would be untouched. The systemd folks took it upon themselves to ensure that when you unmounted C, systemd would also unmount B.

Why? I guess the old way was too old-fashioned.

See
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1303.3/02566.html
and
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1303.3/03254.html

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (2)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about 3 months ago | (#47811905)

Holy fuck a Linux/Unix guy I'd shake hands with. This is the correct answer, folks :P The minute you get into a "get off my lawn" approach to technology is the day you sign your career's death warrant.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 3 months ago | (#47812173)

It's not so much "get off my lawn," as "have your dog crap in your own yard."

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 3 months ago | (#47811941)

Rather than have an /etc/init.d/myservice restart all related services to ensure a "clean" environment, I can list dependencies and triggers and rely on the system to do what is appropriate.

So it solves a problem that Gentoo solved years ago in its script-driven init system?

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812181)

Yep. One of the things you can always count on from Poettering & co. is an almost complete lack of awareness of preexisting projects solving the same problem that they've decided to tackle.

If an eighth of the effort that went into systemd was spent on removing the rough edges from OpenRC, Debian Jessie would be using OpenRC now instead of systemd.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (3, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 months ago | (#47812107)

Almost everyone I've asked that has expressed hatred of SystemD hasn't actually used it. The vast majority either hate the creator or read some blog post, all but one had never used it or tried to understand it. I attribute much of the hatred to a "I hate change" attitude that is unfortunately common in the *Nix sphere.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Insightful)

nabsltd (1313397) | about 3 months ago | (#47812331)

Almost everyone I've asked that has expressed hatred of SystemD hasn't actually used it.

I've used it. I hate it.

Ignoring the very real problem that putting so damn much in PID 1 is dangerous for system stability and security, systemd is generally OK for all distribution-supplied packages. But, if you have anything at all that the packagers didn't think of, it's a pain in the ass. For example, getting sendmail to not start until the clamd server is ready to accept connections isn't easy using systemd, but trivial using a standard init script.

Also, despite the fact that dependencies are baked-in to systemd, it's not at all uncommon for a service that depends on an something else (service, NFS mount, etc.) to still start up before the dependency is fully ready, simply because the default systemd is to assume the dependency is fulfilled as soon as whatever "starts" it returns.

Next, there is no easy way to copy existing dependencies to another service (which would be the best way to start creating your own), mostly because the systemd docs and examples simply suck.

Last, the dependency system absolutely screams for a GUI interface to be able to follow and configure it, but when one finally is created (if it hasn't been already), it'll be useless on servers, because nobody with brains installs a GUI on the server.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#47812359)

Simply being the "new shiny shiny" means that it is untested and unproven. That's not something you just can casually gloss gloss over.

This adversity to change is common to ALL professionally managed systems. It has nothing to do with Unix in particular.

If it is anything like Upstart then it is a bunch of added complexity for no real gain.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (4, Informative)

Korgan (101803) | about 3 months ago | (#47812147)

If it was just replacing the /etc/init.d mess, that'd be fine.

My main problem with SystemD is that it is turning into this massive black hole that's trying to replace many different systems in one. And not very well at that.

Why replace pam.d, crond, init, and add complexities like dbus in a single package that runs at PID1 when it doesn't need to? So now a single flaw in its crond could allow a vector that lets dbus provide a way to trick pam.d into letting users escalate their privileges? Sure, it hasn't happened yet, but when you start intertwining these apps into a single super app....

Worse, the logging it provides is next to useless. If I have a headless server with no GUI, how the hell am I supposed to read binary logs? It doesn't even give me useful information during the boot process. At least my old init scripts could do that much.

It completely goes against the core principles of UNIX in general. Do one thing, and do it damn well. Make it interoperable with other processes. Log to text. Configure with text.

I don't want this massive beast of a process that replaces my options. And I especially don't want one that isn't even very good at performing the original single task its supposed to be replacing, let alone all the franken-tasks its taken on.

If this were just about replacing init, I doubt I'd be anywhere near as bothered. But as an active admin, this bothers me significantly more than just having to redo my startup scripts.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (2)

Zeromous (668365) | about 3 months ago | (#47812271)

Now this is it. Do it once and do it well every Unix prof i know used to say. Damn kids. Im selfish though I just want portable scripts.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812333)

If I have a headless server with no GUI, how the hell am I supposed to read binary logs?

LOL. Maybe with the command line based log reader? Or maybe you have never used the last command to parse the binary log file which is wtmp either.

And before you spin it into a Windows Server diss, also remember that Windows allows powershell via winrs which is essentially the ssh for windows (or you can install ssh and tada same interface). So now that you have powershell access you have full access to the entire event-based binary log system. At the command line.

    And before you bash Windows for not allowing you to run your bash script to parse that binary log file, enter cygwin which gives you a posix compliant environment that can run windows executables.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812347)

AMEN

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Informative)

SumDog (466607) | about 3 months ago | (#47812217)

But OpenRC (Gentoo) does dependency management without having to replace init.

Now systemd does give you a lot of advantages when it comes to fully managing processes, respawing and dbus/alerting. But that's also part of the problem. It connects to EVERYTHING. And if one of those things breaks or has a security flaw, you could pass messages around and compromise systems.

Not to mention the command line tools SUCK.

Sys V: /etc/init.d/ (stat|stop|restart)

Upstart: (start|stop|restart)

Systemd: systemctl restart .service

And you get ZERO output. You have to run journalctl -n or systemctl status right after it. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?! A widows developer?

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (4, Interesting)

r_naked (150044) | about 3 months ago | (#47812339)

I hate posting a "me too" post, but you nailed it. Who the FUCK thought that having to run a separate command to find out if your service started was a good idea?!?

I work in a shop that has ~2000 Red Hat servers / VMs, and my advice will be to switch to something else unless Red Hat gets their heads out of their asses, and gets rid of systemd. Unfortunately we don't really have the option of moving to FreeBSD (tooooo much code to port), but I am sure their will be a distro that fills the void. At least we have a few years to worry about it since 6.x is supported for a few more years -- hell I might fork the final 6.x release.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812319)

My experiences with systemd have been good and I can see how it can eliminate some of the kludges I've relied on in the past. Rather than have an /etc/init.d/myservice restart all related services to ensure a "clean" environment, I can list dependencies and triggers and rely on the system to do what is appropriate.

Actaully, after just diagnosing why syslog-ng refused to restart and simultaneously ate a fucking server CPU as systemd ate antoher attempted to restart it in a horrible, painful loop of death while throttling the shit out of logs on a server of ours, I'd be inclined to disagree with "god experiences". The problem? Systemd was holding a now GONE library version over that compilation of the NEW syslog-ng had replaced. Restarting the service? Not so much possible. Systemd? insistently hanging on the the now GONE library. After figuring out that I abso-fucking-lutely must STOP the service manually and then START it with some liberal KILL -9's thrown around for good measure? Everything was fine.Or I could have rebooted. That's the normal solution to IT problems, right?

It doesn't eliminate the ability to create or use System V init scripts, it just provides administrators with an alternative. Given the distribution creators have put a lot of effort into converting their scripts we have a lot of examples to work from. I've been working with UNIX since the 80's and rather than adopt a "get off my lawn" mentality I'm looking forward to embracing solutions to modern problems and see this as a positive step forward.

Actually, systemd fucks up pretty much every system I've seen it on. Servers, Notebooks, Desktops. I haven't seen systemd stable on a system once. Oh sure, it's fine as long as nothing happens, or perhaps if you reboot frequently. But install updates to running services and let systemd try to figure out what the fuck to do? Good luck. The hanging on to a library FILE HANDLE through a SERVICE restart was a fucking BRILLIANT piece of coding.

Which makes me think SYSTEMD is probably alpha software, being thrust into production.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (5, Informative)

DoomSprinkles (1933266) | about 3 months ago | (#47811755)

What us geeks dislike about it is much the same reason we dislike systemd: its an abstract layer between you and the configuration of your services/daemons. We like init.d in that we can script those daemons and even add on to those init scripts if we choose. Where as windows services puts this wall between you and that sweetness. And systemd is pushing us in that direction and OP's last comment in the summary is ringing more and more true.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47812057)

"puts this wall between you and that sweetness"
The best thing about Windows discussion /. is the Windows ignorance.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812029)

There's nothing wrong with services.msc, it's just a GUI management snapin for MMC. All of its functions can be performed by net, sc, or anything that can calls the Services API (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms685942%28v=vs.85%29.aspx) including .NET web pages, programs and PowerShell scripts.

Perhaps you're confusing services.msc with svchost.exe, which is a runtime container that purposely obscures what executables actually make up a service.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812327)

Perhaps you're confusing services.msc with svchost.exe, which is a runtime container that purposely obscures what executables actually make up a service.

...and even that can be broken down with the appropriate tools.

Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812289)

What's wrong with services.msc on a Windows Server machine? Any serious answers from people who actually used it?

"The service did not respond to control requests"

Happy Tuesday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811605)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Not too worried about it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811611)

It's backwards-compatible and seems to work just fine.

if systemd forces it's way into gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811615)

I'll just say fuck it and switch to windows 100%

Re:if systemd forces it's way into gentoo (1)

erice (13380) | about 3 months ago | (#47811699)

I'll just say fuck it and switch to windows 100%

It is already in gentoo if you run Gnome3, which is most people. It is pretty messy too since the documentation has not caught up.

Re:if systemd forces it's way into gentoo (1)

BluPhenix316 (2656403) | about 3 months ago | (#47811733)

Funtoo has patched GNOME 3 to work without systemd.

Re:if systemd forces it's way into gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812297)

nobody on this entire fucking planet uses gnome3.

Too late, we already bailed. (4, Funny)

jerpyro (926071) | about 3 months ago | (#47811635)

Some of us stopped using Red Hat when the NetworkManager mess came out with RHEL 6.
Why would we expect RHEL 7 to be any better?

You RedHat fans have fun with your "RedHat Vista" release. :P

Re:Too late, we already bailed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811827)

Some of us stopped using Red Hat when the NetworkManager mess came out with RHEL 6.

rpm -e NetworkManager

Oh, and there's like one or two completely unnecessary dependencies you might also need to remove.

You're welcome. Unless you're one of those people who leaves ten thousand packages of shit installed just because some install profile designed by an asshat threw it onto your system.

If so, get a new job.

Re:Too late, we already bailed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811947)

Are you fucking high? All you need to do is drop NM_CONTROLLED="no" in every /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-$NICNAME file you want to manually control. Combine with a good devops system or other method of generating preconfigured install images, and you never even have to think about NetworkManager on EL6. It's a lot better and more reliable than EL5 ever was, and I say that as a Debian fan.

Re:Too late, we already bailed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811961)

yeah, I'm considering moving, even though I really love RPM/Yum. I've just had it with systemd, both for my server and desktop environments. I don't really care about faster boot/shutdown times because I don't tend to do a lot of either, and actually have noticed it getting FUCKING SLOW shutting down since systemd has started to creep into everything.

BONUS: Captcha=breaking

Re:Too late, we already bailed. (4, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about 3 months ago | (#47812197)

Likewise. In the process of migrating a considerable proportion of a large RHEL estate over to BSD here. A general lack of satisfaction with RHEL6 started our look at alternatives - including other Linux distros - but SystemD was our deciding factor in the making the slightly more drastic leap from Linux to BSD. Despite the dream of Linux on the Desktop, most of us are actually running Linux on servers with (hopefully) competent personnel, so we don't really need some cuddly desktop OS that needs to pander to the lowest level of luser or the additional cruft and abstraction layers that brings, let alone the mess of package dependencies that seems to be afflicting Linux at present. In some cases we're seeing significant perfomance gains for what, in theory, should be the same basic set of code so for us it's more performance for less cost, and possibly an interesting call with our RHEL rep when the first tranche of RHEL licenses come up a renewal we are not going to need...

The King is dead, long live the King!

The Future! (5, Insightful)

elysiuan (762931) | about 3 months ago | (#47811681)

Oh day of days! Now it needs to statically link in gconf and we'll all have a registry too!

Is anyone really concerned about this? Let me put on my prophetic wizard hat and predict how this is going to go from here:

  1. Systemd isn't going anywhere. The distros that use it will largely continue to use it.
  2. Enough people hate Systemd enough the motivation to create some distros that absolutely do not use it will be very high.
  3. Such distros will be created (Maybe use nixos/nix/guix as the base for extra change-it-up-ability.).
  4. Much like Mate/Cinnamon vs Gnome 3: people will use both the systemd distros and the systemd-less distros.
  5. Much gnashing of teeth will ensue for years to come. A la emacs vs vim, kde vs gnome, gnome 3 vs gnome 2, etc ad nausem

I'm really not trying to be flip but this is just the FOSS process at work here. It's messy sometimes but so is anything that involves people. Embrace the ecosystem that makes this whole argument possible! If Apple or Microsoft decided they want some polorizing system like Systemd to be the new hotness in their OS offerings there's literally fuck all we could do about it. At least with the FOSS environment we have the freedom to make our own decisions

Re:The Future! (4, Insightful)

Lotana (842533) | about 3 months ago | (#47811843)

Great! That is all we need. More fragmentation in the community! As if choosing a distro wasn't confusing enough as it is for newcomers!

THIS is the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop.

Re:The Future! (1, Insightful)

elysiuan (762931) | about 3 months ago | (#47811907)

How many consumers do you know of who give two shits about the OS that runs on their system? They use what comes with the computer. When they buy Steamboxen it'll come with SteamOS and they'll use it as endusers use anything. If you honestly think the vast majority of people are going to weigh the pros and cons of various linux distros AT ALL much less down to the level of detail of their INIT SYSTEMS I honestly don't think we can have much of a conversation.

Some super windows-fied linux systemd based distro would most likely be a net positive for the whole 'linux on the desktop' bugbear. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have the freedom to chose differently for myself however.

Re:The Future! (1)

silviuc (676999) | about 3 months ago | (#47811913)

Newcomers don't mess around with init systems genius. The debate pro/against systemd is something that power users/sysadmins have, not grandma and cousing Louie.

Re:The Future! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811951)

Yes! Freedom is slavery. Peace is war. Logic dictates our values, not the other way around. etc..

Re:The Future! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812143)

Modded flamebait and yet its true. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Re:The Future! (2, Insightful)

Skarjak (3492305) | about 3 months ago | (#47812231)

The fragmentation argument is a terrible one, and always was. User's who aren't too technically literate don't know about any linux distro but the one they're using. Hell, how many people out there know what ubuntu is but have no idea what linux is? How would these people even know that a new distro came out which doesn't use systemd, if they're not already a huge nerd? As for newcomers who are more technically literate, just pick ubuntu. It works. Or one of the other big ones if you really want to try things out. This is really not a big deal. Fragmentation is also not an issue for developpers. They claimed it was the reason they wouldn't port games to linux for a while, but then they realised they can just say they're targeting ubuntu and the communities for different distros will figure out what libraries are required. That's what they're doing and it works perfectly. I'm gaming on archlinux. It is officialy supported by exactly 0 developpers out there. Ask me if fragmentation is an issue.

Fragmentation doesn't hurt anyone. The many distros just give power users more choice. It's also in the spirit of open source software. The maitainers for all those distros don't owe anything to anyone. They don't have to tattoo the penguin on their forehead and march in line with the rest of the linux crowd to "advance the cause of linux". They do this because they like it. And they're not hurting anyone.

Lots of people (i.e. me) aren't in it for the (2)

aussersterne (212916) | about 3 months ago | (#47811925)

ecosystem, but for working tools. Democratic messiness is great when it results in working tools. But as an end in itself, in software development? Meh.

Re:Lots of people (i.e. me) aren't in it for the (1)

elysiuan (762931) | about 3 months ago | (#47811973)

That's totally valid. It still is nice we have the freedom to choose the tools in your toolbox though. I worked on Gnome for a few years and was a Gnome foundation member: I fully appreciate the position of not wanting to deal with democratic messiness and just consuming the output of such.

Re:The Future! (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#47812183)

If Apple or Microsoft decided they want some polorizing system like Systemd to be the new hotness in their OS offerings there's literally fuck all we could do about it.

Would that be "fuck all" as in "buy something else", "don't buy at all" or "insist on the old version"? Tanking sales tend to have a very correcting effect on for-profit companies, assuming there's competition to speak of. Sure, I can't decide what that company will do but I can't decide what that OSS project will do either and while I can theoretically fork and maintain my own version it's not really a practical possibility 99.9% of the time. If there happens to be enough people dissatisfied with the direction it's taking to make a fork that's fortunate for me but really outside my control too.

I've been watching Gnome/KDE trying to battle Windows now for the last 15 years or so and making so little progress YotLD has become the running joke around here ever since Duke Nuke'm Forever shipped. Then I look at Android which is more cathedral than bazaar and it's gone from nothing to 85% world wide market share in 6 years. And the absolutely greatest success the Linux kernel is run like anything but a bazaar, lieutenants are from military hierarchy and it has one general on top - or benevolent dictator for life if that sounds better. Sometimes picking one direction - even if it's not the absolutely best one - beats taking no direction or pulling in ten different directions. Heresy, I know.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811693)

I was looking forward to reading the www.infoworld.com articles, but ended up at www.infotimeout.com.

Dun matter (3, Insightful)

Conceptualizing (3785843) | about 3 months ago | (#47811725)

"[...] the exceedingly loud protests on message boards, forums" - and all other places that don't matter

I'm switching to an OS designed for the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811731)

It's called Plan 9. And it was ready for The Cloud before we were calling it The Cloud.

(no, I'm not really switching, as it's not production ready. but it made some really interesting design decisions that Linux and FreeBSD missed)

Re:I'm switching to an OS designed for the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811923)

So you just wanted to pop in and say something about Plan 9 then?

Kthxbye.

Re:I'm switching to an OS designed for the cloud (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47812247)

So you just wanted to pop in and say something about Plan 9 then?

Kthxbye.

Actually he would bind his explanation into your file system name space.
   

Troll much? (1, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 3 months ago | (#47811745)

". Go ahead, kids, spackle over all of that unsightly runlevel stuff. Paint over init and cron, pam and login. Put all of that into PID1 along with dbus. ... Tune your distribution for desktop workloads. Go reinvent Windows."

Posting this uninformed drivel as a valid submission is a new low for Slashdot. Init runs as PID 1. Systemd runs as PID 1. In other words systemd renames Init to systemd. Does this idiot not get that systemd is essentially just a powerful universal init system that beats SysV and BSD style init?

Hint: A bunch of people still think Windows is great. Claiming that "lots of people don't like systemd equates to anything other than lots of people don't understand systemd, but will complain anyway is just stupid. Systemd works great, and most of the major distributions have chosen to switch to it for good reason.

Some people don't like them new fangled fuel injectors and still think a carburetor is the way to go as well. For those people, the old init systems are still available, but fighting progress with FUD is the Microsoft way, and while nobody is reinventing Windows here, these "systemd suxors" idiots are becoming the new FUD machine.

Re:Troll much? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 3 months ago | (#47811879)

Exactly. SystemD is more than just init, but not all of it is in PID 1. The whole desktop thing is just crazy. Its pretty clear thats as accurate as crazy tea partiers who think Obama is a Muslim. No rigor, no research, no thought from those people.

Now there may be some very legitimate complains about systemd. However, they get drowned out by the BS. It would also help if someone who doesn't like SystemD to actually work on an alternative Services management system that solved some of the same problems that systemD does.

Re:Troll much? (4, Interesting)

armanox (826486) | about 3 months ago | (#47812027)

Except we don't see systemd solving any problems. It is a solution searching for a problem.

Re:Troll much? (5, Informative)

Junta (36770) | about 3 months ago | (#47812345)

Well it does solve some problems, just not problems many server administrators largely cared about while creating problems some systems administrators really do care about.

-Services cannot reparent themselves out of the launching context, meaning init system *always* knows how many processes it is and resources it consumes. It's nice and structured, too bad that ps axf and grep largely serve the same purpose when things went south, but the systemd approach is certainly more structured. Of course it means that you can't try out a systemd controlled service start in a chroot, since it can't take pid 1 and how could we have *possibly* ever lived starting services as anything but pid 1.

-Bake in more advanced log processing to mitigate the need for log analysis tools. The problem of course being that those log analysis tools tend to work well enough while leaving the plain text behind in a manner that can be trivially opened and perused in Windows or whatever.

-Starting up /bin/sh hundreds of times during boot is wasteful and slows boot. Systemd mitigates that by enabling more lightweight service start. However you'd have to care something about boot times, which is rarely even in the mobile category (android phones take forever to boot, but people don't seem to mind since they almost never reboot them), and not mind that more opaque binary code is handling stuff that a common sysadmin cannot trace.

-Sequential startup of services is silly when many can be started in parallel. Of course now you have to debug a less deterministic boot process to enable such a thing, with the same inscrutable code paths for the sake of a faster boot very few people needed.

Re:Troll much? (3, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 months ago | (#47811991)

systemd reminds me of Solaris' svcs, and I DO NOT WANT.

Re:Troll much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812139)

> Does this idiot not get that systemd is essentially just a powerful universal init system that beats SysV and BSD style init?

It only runs on Linux, and will only ever run on Linux. It is not universal. Upstream has vociferously declared that any attempts to merge patches to port to other systems will be denied, unless those other systems are feature-for-feature compatible with Linux. The problem with systemd is that it's so much more than an init system. Remember kdbus? Remember udev? These are now projects that are part of systemd, and now *require* it in order to run.

Why? Why does a device-node manager require systemd? Why does a kernel-level implementation of a re-written DBUS protocol require systemd?

That we have to ask these questions is reason enough to be angry about systemd.

Re:Troll much? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 3 months ago | (#47812269)

"It only runs on Linux, and will only ever run on Linux."

Who cares? Do you really think it needs to be ported to Windows?

"Upstream has vociferously declared that any attempts to merge patches to port to other systems will be denied, unless those other systems are feature-for-feature compatible with Linux."

Yes. In the field of software engineering we call this good engineering practice. If a different OS wants to fork it and use it they can, but none of the non-linux incompatible cruft is going to be folded back into the main branch. Your complaint boils down to: OMFG! The systemd folks insist on following solid engineering practices!

"That we have to ask these questions is reason enough to be angry about systemd."

No. It isn't. They haven't cracked into the SysV and BSD init repos and deleted everything, so you have no reason to be angry. If you like that old garbage, you are free to use it. Being angry that others choose to use a better system while giving you the freedom to use what you want is just plain stupid.

Re:Troll much? (5, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | about 3 months ago | (#47812235)

What I don't understand is why systemd advocates continue to not understand the perspective of those against it. Critics tend to recognize what systemd brings to the table and debate from that point. Advocates just call those people idiots, curmudgeons, and so on rather than understanding the perspective of the opposing viewpoint. It's quite maddening.

Init runs as PID 1. Systemd runs as PID 1.

Most init systems have a negligible amount of code running as pid 1, meaning init itself is unlikely to ever cause a blip at runtime. The complaint is what the implication for the complexity and volume of code in systemd approach. A better counter argument would be that the kernel itself has even more complex needs and runs in an equally critical context. That's a bit more defensible, though adding more complexity under that excuse is still a weak one.

Claiming that "lots of people don't like systemd equates to anything other than lots of people don't understand systemd, but will complain anyway is just stupid

No, lot's of people who know well enough how systemd works and still don't like it for valid reasons. No one claims it is not capable of things that classic init could not really do, but the question is the relative value of those features and what is given up in the pursuit of those capabilities. systemd is more monolithic in design, involves more compiled code beyond the reach of the typical shell capabilities of a sysadmin, and is more complex in its underpinnings in general. If your boot went off the rails in a classic init system, you can work through it using shell debug because it is comprised of a tiny bit of c code that hasn't changed in an eternity jumping into a sea of plain old shell scripts.. You can chroot and play around a non-booting image if needed. If systemd goes off the rails, it requires a much more complicated debug effort. You pretty much have to start up a container rather than just chroot (admittedly systemd provides a facility to mitigate the complexity of that task, but it is more complex than just chroot). It has a high likelihood of landing in some code a sysadmin is helpless in the face of compared to the same task in classic init scripts. A local mistake can escalate to systemd debug assistance more quickly. This is very much like Windows (which has it's qualities as well) where if things go off the rails very far, it's nearly a lost cause to sort out what happened and how to come back from it unless you have Microsoft developers ready to answer the call to debug it (and they almost never are).

Some people don't like them new fangled fuel injectors and still think a carburetor is the way to go as well.

And there are tons of carburetor platforms in the wild for brand new products. Try finding a leaf blower with fuel injection. The cost and complexity of a fuel injection system is too high in many applications. If cost and complexity were equal, then *everything* would be fuel injected, but cost and complexity are not equal. This is actually a very good analogy for systemd, capable of inarguably fancier tricks but the universe of mechanics who can repair it when broken versus throwing the whole thing out is much different. The relative merit though is more questionable (everyone benefits from lower fuel consumption and reduced uncombusted gasoline in the atmosphere, not everyone really benefits meaningfully from the advances in systemd).

What systemd advocates fail to recognize is that not everyone should have to be an application developer to administer systems. They assume minor configuration mistakes are all sysadmins have to contend with and thus they don't understand why a sysadmin might need to follow the flow of the init system in more detail and yet not have the ability to easily cope with systemd code. The 'DevOps' buzzword may embolden assumptions in some circles, but it does not mean that good sys admins have magically changed, just that buzzwords have come to recognize how a good system admin has gotten his job done all along.

Yes systemd more thoroughly captures a child daemon into a cgroup. Yes systemd can do faster boot through avoiding the start of relatively expensive script interpreters repeatedly and also making services boot in a fashion. Yes journald files can more quickly accommodate more complex searches against the data. Critics don't say this is inaccurate, they say usually it is worthwhile or could have been done with a better design to cater to the sensibilities of those who really need to be able to handle unfortunate bootup scenarios as well as they can today without becoming systemd specialitsts.

Re:Troll much? (-1, Flamebait)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 3 months ago | (#47812365)

"Most init systems have a negligible amount of code running as pid 1, meaning init itself is unlikely to ever cause a blip at runtime. "

It means no such thing. You need to learn about spwan and fork, then get back to us.

"better counter argument would be that the kernel itself has even more complex needs and runs in an equally critical context."

I was going to make a similar point, without the lack of understanding of the kernel that you have. The kernel does not run " in an equally critical context" at all. It often runs in a far more critical context. Systemd runs in User space. The kernel runs in ... wait for it ... kernel space. Just as you don't understand fork and spawn, you clearly don't understand how privilege segmenting works in Linux. Much of the kernel runs in Ring 0 for example. It can disable interrupts and do all kinds of things that systemd cannot because ... wait for it ... it runs in user space.

"What systemd advocates fail to recognize is that not everyone should have to be an application developer to administer systems. "

Are you a troll? There is nothing more inherently complex about systemd than any other init system (and there are hundreds that fall under the SysV and BSD style, so don't kid yourself thinking there are two.) You can learn one system with systemd, rather than having to relearn how each distribution is using the basic SysV or BSD style approach completely differently from every other.

tldr?: EPIC FAIL

Paul Venezia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811771)

Is a click-whoring moron.

More clickbait for Venezia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811861)

It looks like Venezia is continuing his hysterical campaign against systemd. In his previous clickbaiting efforts and in this one, he hasn't contributed anything of value to the debate, which will continue with or without him. And systemd will succeed or fail, on servers and desktops, on its own merits. Those who run servers will adopt systemd if it makes life easier for them. If it saves them money it will be successful. If it doesn't, it won't. Ditto for those who deploy and administer desktops. In any case, emotional diatribes like Venezia's contribute nothing to the debate but noise. "You have your Windows in my Linux"???? Huh? What does that mean, anyway? The innuendo seems to be along the lines of "Windows is evil, systemd = Windows, therefore systemd must be evil." This is infantile at best. I hope Venezia's campaign gets the amount of traction he richly deserves, which is very little.

why is this on slashdot (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811865)

This is *the* stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot. Holy crap. Can we mark this as spam and delete it?

Re:why is this on slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47811981)

Agree, if you don't like it go back to Winblows

Oh, the humanity! (2, Insightful)

Spasmodeus (940657) | about 3 months ago | (#47811895)

I have some apprehensions about systemd and the direction it is pushing Linux, but the bug-eyed histrionics from the systemd haters is so comically absurd that it doesn't exactly make me want to join their cause.

so annoying (1)

mrguitar1 (3810107) | about 3 months ago | (#47811945)

snydeq please stop bitching. Comparing systemd and the new proposal to windows is asinine and you know it. You're acting like a spoiled child. There are better more appropriate methods for voicing your opinion than here.

What do we need systemd for? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812065)

My main problem is that the old init system was dead simple to administer. You only needed to know basic shell scripting as well as grep and you could figure out most things you ever encountered. Systemd again is a horribly complicated program that probably no one except the developers understand inside out.

It seems to me like this whole systemd/upstart etc. nonsense started when someone wanted to make machines boot up faster. The problem is that in today's world how fast a machine boots is completely irrelevant. On VM's you can clone a running machine, so how the OS starts is unimportant. A classic server is always on and rarely gets booted. Laptops, which seemed like the obvious target, are typically just suspended to disk, so they rarely run through the whole boot process. Desktops are typically sleeping too when not in use.

In other words, I still haven't figured out why anyone would need systemd. I've never had a reason to need it. I've only had reasons to hate it when something that used to be very simple is now hidden behind some complicated shell commands.

You guys know that there are other things in life (1)

sweffymo (1760622) | about 3 months ago | (#47812073)

...That are more worth getting mad about than this, right?

Bah Humbug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812077)

SystemD is a disaster for the linux ecosystem. It is over complex and just tries to do way too much. Get it the hell out of my way!.

Not only that the lead developer is a documented xxxx. And his co-horts aren't much more helpful.

I will be in the group looking for alternatives for my servers, and my clients' servers. I'm very disappointed with Debian for deciding to push systemD. On the RHEL side, i'm not surprised, Redhat have come up with a lot of nonsense ex NetworkManager, Firewalld. It really is a shame they're so influential.

*sigh* If only Freebsd had a decent and widely used/available package manager. compared to, say, RPM, freebsd's pkg_add is a joke. Dpkg packaging is a mess. would quite like to see Freebsd adopting/forking RPM.

Edit much? (4, Funny)

Yaztromo (655250) | about 3 months ago | (#47812079)

"Although there are those who think the systems debate has been decided in favour of systems, the exceedingly loud protests on message boards, forums, and the posts I wrote over the past two weeks would indicate otherwise.

"Although there are those who think bacon is tasty, a loud protests I've posted recently on message boards, forums, and here on /. over the past two weeks would indicate otherwise."

(Yeah, I've been here long enough to know that nobody at /. does any actual editing. Still, can I make fun of the submitter for making it sound like (s)he's the one who is going around and posting all the loud protests, and then trying to make it seem like some sort of movement?)

Yaz

What an awesome tradeoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812087)

New system admins are scared of documentation and can't be fucked finding out what runlevels are and how they work. Let's drop it all in a shit bucket and replace it with systemd, whose documentation isn't up to date either (new system admins wouldn't read it anyway, right?), has known bugs that crash the kernel, and already includes GUI tools that haven't been updated in over three years. What's wrong with people?

mod uhp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812093)

BSD's aaclaimed BUWLA, or BSD in our group

Well... does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812105)

Having to do a lot of things through command lines is pretty much the main reason why Linux is still out of reach of the mainstream and kept in the shadowy depth of the internet...
SystemD or not, as long as I have to install softwares that are not in the synaptic, through command lines, you will never make the casuals switch to Linux.

create abstraction (1)

Twillerror (536681) | about 3 months ago | (#47812195)

I often wonder why the community does not create more tools that abstract away the differences as much as possible.

Every distro has it's package manager and with it different syntax. Imaging if you had a tool like "install-it mysql" which on Ubuntu goes to apt-get install, or pacman's syntax, or yum or whatever.

The thing I mostly worry about is packages. Say what you will about Windows and Mac, but developing an app for them generally has a limited set of ways. There is only one way to do services in Windows, etc.

It is hard to get say Webcam apps to get ported to Linux because the poor devs have to figure out webcams in 10 different distros. Everyone in the boards say "ubuntu 14 +1", .... no no Arch first!!! and so on. Should it matter as much app to app? Shouldn't distros at least have some level of uniformity...a layer of it.

abstraction layers cause problems... (1)

Junta (36770) | about 3 months ago | (#47812255)

The complaint about systemd is that it adds complexity to the base function of the OS, not that it fails to do what it advertises. It's not that people take issue with the way you deal with systemd, it's that when things don't go according to plan, it's a mess compared to the alternative.

For the services, you do have SysV for example still. You write one SysV script and systemd can make use of it just like the other init systems can.

Why didn't depinit gain more popularity? (1)

Art3x (973401) | about 3 months ago | (#47812341)

Judging from this description in an older story [slashdot.org] , I'm wondering why the Linux community didn't embrace depinit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?