Originally posted by L_A_G
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Debian To Seek A General Resolution Over Their Init System Policy
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Karl Napf View PostAt least a significant number of Debian developers seems to disagree or there would not be this GR proposal in Debian.
Originally posted by Karl Napf View PostJust to quote the void linux wiki: "Installing GNOME on Void Linux is very easy"
Originally posted by Karl Napf View PostI do see two dependencies of 3rd party software mentioned rather regularly:- libsystemd: A library that is there that wraps all the code that is needed to have its dependent software work with or without systemd. I doubt this would be any problem if that library would have been called libfoobar or something... in fact even Devuan rolled back their changes to remove this dependency once they figured out that the library does nothing:-)
- logind: A stable and fully documented DBus API with several implementations that do not need systemd to be PID1. Ok, systemd devs do not recommend that to be re-implemented elsewhere, but what do they know? Their judgement can't be trusted for anything else, so why here? :-)
Still, that's not the end of story. For example, here you have GNOME 3.34 which now depends on systemd --user (the process manager itself) for session management. This dependency is now optional (the old code didn't go anywhere), but I'm assuming it will be made mandatory in a few releases or so (because that's the point of using systemd — to reduce the amount of code in your project via code reuse, not the other way around).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostIt's only "unsubstantiated" in the sense that you rather conveniently forget every example and explanation given to you. You don't just forget then in between conversations, in literally the post you're replying I pointed out that the cross-dependencies force you to pull in all of the major components and make it near impossible for third parties to replace, fork or otherwise improve parts of it.
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostProbably the best example of this is loginD, which has literally been forced upon almost every distro due to very heavy cross-dependencies and the herculean task of avoiding it's use. But I guess you're probably going to continue insisting that I'm not bringing up any examples or proof of my arguments seeing how I've seen you take part in arguments about this systemD module in question.
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostI could go into how the constant feature creep is not only making it a bigger and bigger attack surface, it's also making it a more and more critical one at the same time. However it's probably a waste of time when you're going to do what you always do upon reading arguments against systemD and forget it as soon as you've finished reading it.
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostSo you didn't understand the analogue, then let me spell it out as plainly as I can; Technically it's a separate issue, but when it takes place in the context of all the other issues it makes them even more serious.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by audir8 View Post
Here's the patch not applied to current master: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/b...server.c#L2187
It's up to upstream to provide modular builds. Unless you don't consider Chromium OS to be Linux in some way.
Did you even look at the patch you linked to? All it does is:
Code:s->cgroup_root = strdup("");
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostYou probably should look at the mess that occurred with Gnome3 and loginD because it's pretty much a case study in what people are concerned about systemD dependencies going back and forth across very vital components.
Originally posted by L_A_G View Postthis "You're not allowed to criticize anything unless you're actively working on something to replace it"-nonsense is just a lazy attempt at trying to avoid addressing criticism.
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostWhen the issue is that the heavily cross-dependent nature of systemD and the resulting unnecessary difficulty of creating and maintaining alternatives to systemD modules like loginD then the blame definitely lies with it's developers. You can't make something incredibly difficult and then try to act like you're not the main reason it's not being done. That's just not how it works.
Second: Why are you so hung up on the systemd code and how they do things? Provide alternative ideas to solve the problems that Linux developers have. There is no need to care for how systemd or anybody else does things or which APIs systemd or any other system has chosen to implement, just solve the problems!
E.g. logind provides a way to securely manage access to device nodes. Write a piece of software that does that by printing tokens in the printer that the user has to scan to actually access a device node, it does not matter. Any robust and workable solution will be picked up by developers, even those currently requiring systemd. They have no other options, so they must use systemd.
Even the "evil" Gnome devs have repeatedly stated that they are willing to accept maintained patches using maintained software as its base for the functionality currently provided by logind.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Karl Napf View PostWhich back and forth dependencies? Systemd-logind depends on system-PID1 to manage cgroups/namespaces for it. That's it.
WAAH WAAH!! STOP VOICING CONCERNS!!! YOU'RE SHOULDN'T CRITICIZE ANYTHING YOU DON'T HAVE SEVERAL MAN MONTHS TO REPLACE AND THEN CONTINUE MAINTAINING
Valid criticisms are still valid regardless of what the person who brings them up is doing. Most people have full time jobs so they obviously don't have the time to implement something as comprehensive as a replacement for systemD components once they're well and truly embedded within a distro or DE and particularly not the continuous maintenance burden that results because of it. After all the issue here is that systemD has dug it's tentacles so far within so many parts of debian that supporting anything other than whatever systemD module has dug it's tentacles within that part of the distro is a huge burden on the developers/maintainers of that part.
In other words the issue here is not just the development and maintenance of systemD alternatives themselves, but how difficult and time consuming systemD has made it, with it's back and forth dependencies, for parts of distros that it's dug it's tentacles into to support any alternatives.
Several devs have successfully managed to extract the logind functionality out of the systemd code base and maintained that for years, so dependencies can't be that bad.
I do give you that we have a "systemd-API-or-nothing" situation right now, simply because nobody can be bothered to implement some alternative approach to solving the problem that logind addresses. That is indeed unfortunate. But till you can prove that systemd developers are threatening developers that try change the status quo: Please stop putting the blame for that at systemd's doorstep.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by andyprough View PostMore people should be concerned.
Originally posted by andyprough View PostI think clearly that users need to be given a choice of init systems, and also a choice of ways to avoid pulling in system-D dependent packages to avoid system-D monolithic structures from creeping into the system.
Go out and help distributions focusing on *one* init system that is not systemd instead, that is way more workable. If all those distributions florish and share ideas and code, they could come up with an alternative to what the systemd project (not only the init system) provides. That would indeed be interesting.
Originally posted by andyprough View PostSeems like avoiding Gnome and Gnome packages may be an important part of that.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostSecurity is all fine and dandy, but when the back and forth dependencies
Originally posted by L_A_G View Post(...) make it incredibly difficult to implement and maintain any other solution
It *can* be done, otherwise there would not have been several implementations of systemd-logind already. Systemd-shim (dead by now, but widely used and battle tested in ubuntu for several releases), elogind (by gentoo, used by Devuan and probably more). I read of some more, but AFAICT those never got used in earnest.
Originally posted by L_A_G View Post(...)it's hardly the fault of anyone who isn't happy about it being forced upon them like this.
Stop complaining and fix stuff yourself.
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostIn this instance systemD with it's back and forth dependencies really is the source of the problem and why I keep calling it functionally monolithic.
I do give you that we have a "systemd-API-or-nothing" situation right now, simply because nobody can be bothered to implement some alternative approach to solving the problem that logind addresses. That is indeed unfortunate. But till you can prove that systemd developers are threatening developers that try change the status quo: Please stop putting the blame for that at systemd's doorstep.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
L_A_G you've also made some very good points about why system-D is very troublesome. More people should be concerned. I think clearly that users need to be given a choice of init systems, and also a choice of ways to avoid pulling in system-D dependent packages to avoid system-D monolithic structures from creeping into the system. Seems like avoiding Gnome and Gnome packages may be an important part of that.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: