Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Plans To Move To Systemd's Logind

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    It really sucks that everything is dependent on systemd now.

    udev, logind, pam, etc.
    It just feels like a big monolithic mess where components cant be interchanged.

    I heard some talks before about something about GNOME depend on systemd?
    Whats next, PulseAudio depend on it too?

    Just one big monolithic stack.
    It is called CoreOS (sans Gnome stuff). And it is great, because it minimizes the maintaince burden. If YOU want to do something exotic just pull the sysd tree and cherry pick what you want. And if YOU dont like the crazy maintenance burden of extracting modules from the three, the YOU know WHY the systemd tree people DONT like to do extra loops of maintenance. So yeah YOU and out-standard-fuckers like Canonical can jump from a bridge, and please chain yourself to the crazy eudev forkster clowns as well.
    Last edited by funkSTAR; 03-07-2013, 05:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nukem View Post
      I recently switch from OpenRC to systemd on my Gentoo system and the difference is incredible. I don't see why anyone would want to stick with upstart.
      So you have not used upstart and yet have an outspoken opinion about it?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by aavci View Post
        A few days ago I tried to shutdown the computer from a virtual terminal and systemd asked me my password. I am amazed that policy management works all the way from the terminal to the graphical interface properly. None of this could be done without a central mechanism.
        How peculiar, I could've sworn "sudo poweroff" has always asked me for my password, a decade before systemd...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          logind was accepted before Mir went public. What really goes on is Canonical adapting because they wont spend time on maintaning stuff. It appears Canonical can only be tamed by putting more stuff into systemds tree. Anyway systemds tree is populated by redhat, intel and linux foundation devs now. Wayland to systemd? It could happen..
          That's what pisses me off. Unilke Red Hat, SUSE and others, Canonical only maintains their own components with CLA. They use the community to get free labor, but they hardly ever contribute anything back upstream that is not Ubuntu specific (so the maintenance is handed over to the community).

          I hope they admit defeat and adopt systemd someday.
          Last edited by newwen; 03-07-2013, 05:57 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            How peculiar, I could've sworn "sudo poweroff" has always asked me for my password, a decade before systemd...
            The point is, you dont have to write sudo. It will check the policy and do "the right thing", shutting down right away, asking for a password or simply give an error.

            Not a big thing, it just shows the integration level. But I guess you don't like policykit either, then you are simply not in the intended audience.

            Also, I didn't say that I was amazed because it asked for a password, I was amazed at the "integration level of the policy management". sudo has nothing to do with policy management.
            Last edited by aavci; 03-07-2013, 06:31 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by newwen View Post
              I hope they admit defeat and adopt systemd someday.
              There is a difference between systemd and the systemd tree.

              Systemd = init+friends
              Systemd tree = coreOS including sysd, udev, bootchart, your mum, and hopefully other future stuff.

              While systemd is brilliant work on its own, systemd tree is our best hope to do away with CLA and crazy horse shit like Mir et al.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by nukem View Post
                I recently switch from OpenRC to systemd on my Gentoo system and the difference is incredible.
                Pretty much my experience as well. It's a bit annoying how many packages don't come with systemd unit files, but other than that, systemd is super powerful and easy to use at the same time. I don't know how people lived without journalctl. And having everything related to system startup managed by systemd just makes a lot of sense. Who needs pm-utils and separate reboot/shutdown etc. executables? It's just natural to make use of all that via systemctl poweroff/suspend/hibernate etc. Automatic network initialisation is a real time-saver. An intelligent way of creating directories at runtime (in /run and all) is also very much appreciated. Plus things like syslog and cron are no longer needed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Modularity for the win!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by plonoma View Post
                    Modularity for the win!
                    What you really are saying: the trade-offs from modularity ftw. Besides the increased maintenance your are cheering for CLA and the shit pulled by Canonical.

                    FUCK FRAGMENTATION
                    Last edited by funkSTAR; 03-07-2013, 07:27 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hopefully this happens with Mir soon. My (ever declining) respect for Canonical would be greatly increased if they showed a willingness to admit mistakes and collaborate for the sake of the community.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                        What you really are saying: the trade-offs from modularity ftw. Besides the increased maintenance your are cheering for CLA and the shit pulled by Canonical.

                        FUCK FRAGMENTATION
                        Actually funky, he's praising systemd and Canonical is showing here that those complaints about systemd being monolithic as opposed to modular were dead wrong. Also a Modular program is far superior to an equivalent monolithic program as a modular program is essentially a wrapper around a bunch of far smaller programs (which means far less maintenance burden although larger initial development burden) that are doing one or a small number of things and it being a bunch of small programs means we can test them far easier because we're able to shove sample data in at the component level and get results back and see if they're what we expect them to be. Also say someone comes up with something better than logind, well you've got a relatively easy time just switching things out, Also what if someone wants to use some of your standardized components but not all of them? Well instead of having to rewrite an equivalent component themselves (thus leading to more fragmentation) they just have to set things up so that they're using your standardized components (thus leading to less fragmentation). A monolithic application on the other hand is quite the opposite, it's a pain to replace, good luck with testing and you're forcing people to have to write their own components. You will also note that over the long run modular programs win out over monolithic ones, systemd replacing sysV is a perfect example of this, although it's but one of many success stories.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I don't understand why they are trying to bolt on a bunch of systemd pieces into upstart, instead of just switching to systemd, which is obviously superior.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                            Actually funky, he's praising systemd and Canonical is showing here that those complaints about systemd being monolithic as opposed to modular were dead wrong. Also a Modular program is far superior to an equivalent monolithic program as a modular program is essentially a wrapper around a bunch of far smaller programs (which means far less maintenance burden although larger initial development burden) that are doing one or a small number of things and it being a bunch of small programs means we can test them far easier because we're able to shove sample data in at the component level and get results back and see if they're what we expect them to be. Also say someone comes up with something better than logind, well you've got a relatively easy time just switching things out, Also what if someone wants to use some of your standardized components but not all of them? Well instead of having to rewrite an equivalent component themselves (thus leading to more fragmentation) they just have to set things up so that they're using your standardized components (thus leading to less fragmentation). A monolithic application on the other hand is quite the opposite, it's a pain to replace, good luck with testing and you're forcing people to have to write their own components. You will also note that over the long run modular programs win out over monolithic ones, systemd replacing sysV is a perfect example of this, although it's but one of many success stories.
                            Come on. You cant make such an assessment without looking at advantages/disadvantages. And the primary DISADVANTAGE these days are fragmentation like Canonicals complete fuck up. Demanding the developers provide the many extra hours of release management and testing to make separate versions of every modules is waste of time. And Canonical takes advantage of this situation and ships CLAed replacements all the time. THAT is helping fragmentation. If Canonical wants to fragment THEY should have the burden not everyone else.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                              I don't understand why they are trying to bolt on a bunch of systemd pieces into upstart, instead of just switching to systemd, which is obviously superior.
                              Control&CLA

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                                Come on. You cant make such an assessment without looking at advantages/disadvantages. And the primary DISADVANTAGE these days are fragmentation like Canonicals complete fuck up. Demanding the developers provide the many extra hours of release management and testing to make separate versions of every modules is waste of time. And Canonical takes advantage of this situation and ships CLAed replacements all the time. THAT is helping fragmentation. If Canonical wants to fragment THEY should have the burden not everyone else.
                                While I agree that their fragmentation should be their problem, just because things are designed as modules doesn't mean that having people using them in their systems inherently places more maintenance demands upon the people writing the modules, and in fact being modularized helps the initial developer because it makes it easier to maintain through testing capability that it opens up and otherwise. Also just because a person is using it doesn't mean that the module developers have to cater to that person, they can like Martin (the Kwin Developer) say "We're not going to take your patches that support only you", thus forcing the individual to take care of their own fragments with rebasing them and such.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X