Users/Developers Threatening Fork Of Debian GNU/Linux

[birdie]

You guys don't understand one important thing.

SystemD is written incorrectly.

1) It should always try to boot as far as it can without crashing. It must go as far as to show login.

2) All corner cases should be handled gracefully or at least explained.

3) There must be no infinite loops.

I've personally seen and experienced all three kinds of above problems. Just look at this bug report which I also hit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069393 and don't tell me it has f*ck to do with Fedora. I had it on RHEL 7. Now of course I shouldn't have compiled my own kernel but I f*cking did, because RHEL has an absolutely outdated kernel which doesn't include many fixes from upstream, and new hardware is not properly supported.

Keep telling my that I'm using it wrong.

But I've never had SysVinit crash due to missing kernel features, malformed fstab or bad unit files.

[birdie]

If you don't configure init files and GRUB and you only use vendor kernels, I'm glad for you.

However I'm a power user and I love to meddle with my system.

[Nobu]

You guys don't understand one important thing.

SystemD is written incorrectly.

1) It should always try to boot as far as it can without crashing. It must go as far as to show login.

2) All corner cases should be handled gracefully or at least explained.

3) There must be no infinite loops.

I've personally seen and experienced all three kinds of above problems. Just look at this bug report which I also hit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069393 and don't tell me it has f*ck to do with Fedora. I had it on RHEL 7. Now of course I shouldn't have compiled my own kernel but I f*cking did, because RHEL has an absolutely outdated kernel which doesn't include many fixes from upstream, and new hardware is not properly supported.

Keep telling my that I'm using it wrong.

But I've never had SysVinit crash due to missing kernel features, malformed fstab or bad unit files.

Patched/fixed. Calm your tits, I don't recall saying you never experienced any problems, I said (in my experience) Fedora is buggy.

You should expect issues if you do anything custom, especially with the kernel (this is why we test before we deploy, no?), regardless of which distribution you choose. The fact remains, the bug got reported, it was fixed upstream (quickly, I might add), and now everyone who uses systemd need not worry about that bug, whereas if it were a bug in an init script, it might only get fixed downstream. Let's not pretend there aren't other bugs just as serious which occur despite systemd--that'd be ignorant.

[discordian]

Operating System U to the rescue!

[bearded_linux_admin]

I am a veteran sysadmin, looking after a few hundred Linux machines, as well as assorted other stuff. The whole systemd debate makes me sad, this thread included. So much swearing (yeah, swearing makes your opinion true-er.) and general hate from both camps. I don't like not having choice. I don't like having something forced on me that doesn't work for me. Most of the discussion here, and elsewhere, is how systemd is a good thing for Linux Desktops. Awesome! But I don't do desktops, I do servers. lots and lots and lots of headless servers.

It is beyond me why I have to put up with the same kind of problems I am putting up with looking after my windows estate (binary logging: SERIOUSLY?!?)

will have to start looking at BSD, or *shudder* Gentoo

[geearf]

If you don't configure init files and GRUB and you only use vendor kernels, I'm glad for you.

However I'm a power user and I love to meddle with my system.

If you were a true power user, you would already have written a replacement to systemd, but since you haven't....

[erendorn]

i asked you, not some websites
and i asked how systemd determines what the next process it starts will be
nothing else

you didn't answer that simple question

But everything is in the link described.
Targets, units, timers have dependencies, which lets you build dependency trees.
When booting the system, graphical.target is selected, so systemd launches the leafs of it's tree in parallel, and then goes up the branches until all conditions for the target are met.
When socket/dbus/timer-activating a unit, systemd starts the leafs of the unit tree, and then goes up the branches.

Or is it not how it works?

[pal666]

You guys don't understand one important thing.

SystemD is written incorrectly.

the only one who does not understand important things and writes ssystemd incorrectly is you

1) It should always try to boot as far as it can without crashing. It must go as far as to show login.

it does. your rhel reports was caused by you mindlessly breaking kernel manually. any program will crash if you will give it unusable kernel.

2) All corner cases should be handled gracefully or at least explained.

they are

3) There must be no infinite loops.

then don't use fucking bash scripts. they contain infinite loops.

But I've never had SysVinit crash due to missing kernel features, malformed fstab or bad unit files.

that is because you are lacking experience. there is no difference from user pov between pid1 crash and not being able to boot due to missing fs.

[danwood76]

I've personally seen and experienced all three kinds of above problems. Just look at this bug report which I also hit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069393 and don't tell me it has f*ck to do with Fedora. I had it on RHEL 7. Now of course I shouldn't have compiled my own kernel but I f*cking did, because RHEL has an absolutely outdated kernel which doesn't include many fixes from upstream, and new hardware is not properly supported.

Hilarious.

I have also incorrectly compiled kernels before that failed to boot due to missing features, even when using SysVinit no less. All you I did was recompile the kernel with the correct features selected and moved on with my life.

Systemd is excellent in my opinion, my system feels far more stable than when I was using SysV or even Upstart (that obviously may be more to do with Ubuntu than anything else).

[pal666]

I am a veteran sysadmin, looking after a few hundred Linux machines, as well as assorted other stuff. The whole systemd debate makes me sad, this thread included. So much swearing (yeah, swearing makes your opinion true-er.) and general hate from both camps. I don't like not having choice. I don't like having something forced on me that doesn't work for me. Most of the discussion here, and elsewhere, is how systemd is a good thing for Linux Desktops. Awesome! But I don't do desktops, I do servers. lots and lots and lots of headless servers.

It is beyond me why I have to put up with the same kind of problems I am putting up with looking after my windows estate (binary logging: SERIOUSLY?!?)

will have to start looking at BSD, or *shudder* Gentoo

for servers it is even better. hint: gzipped logs are binary and journald can export to syslog. how many init choices do you have in freebsd ? btw, systemd is not analogous to sysvinit, it is analogous to frebsd basesystem: GET SOME BRAIN!!!1111