Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd In Ten Years Has Redefined The Linux Landscape

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by elatllat View Post
    I liked service status more than systemctl status, service scripts have less boilerplate now, the new security bugs should have been avoided with rust. otherwise systemd is not changed anything for me.
    True, but Poettering said that only the core part of systemd will be rewritten in Rust because rewriting all of it is unreal.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by cl333r View Post

      True, but Poettering said that only the core part of systemd will be rewritten in Rust because rewriting all of it is unreal.
      yep, it's unrealistic because it's a massive project for doing simple things... 🙄

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by cl333r View Post

        True, but Poettering said that only the core part of systemd will be rewritten in Rust because rewriting all of it is unreal.
        Oh yeah. Meme developer succumbs to the "rewrite it in Rust" meme. Can't get any better. What would have to be rewritten?
        • su
        • mount
        • start-stop-daemon
        • login
        • PAM
        • getty
        • syslog
        • bind
        • udev
        • cryptsetup
        • fstab
        • at
        • autofs
        • gnome-session
        • acpi
        • cgroups
        • cron
        • dbus
        • tcpwrapper
        • audit

        Comment


        • #14
          systemd is terrible, that's why almost every distro has wisely chosen to avoid this monstrosity...wait a minute...

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by aht0 View Post
            You never thought to look around for third party service manager? "Manual restarting" is getting rather worn down as arguments go ^^
            That's not what happened. They looked around. They for instance had a look at Apple's launchd, liked some ideas, and tried to avoid some of its shortcomings.

            This is an interesting point of view on the matter, from a BSD guy:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

            Comment


            • #16
              SystemD is fine when you get used to it. InitRC always felt like an unwieldy hack of copy/pasted scripts to me (with start up ordering driven by alphabetic sorting).

              In any case, the original "Unix way" was to store a comma separated list of programs to run in inittab. You started them by typing "init 4" and so on effectively as a shortcut - basically the same idea as /etc/fstab.

              Comment


              • #17
                I think Michael actually gets a kick out of starting systemD threads just to reignite flame wars. He even posted a poll just to see what happens next.

                Comment


                • #18
                  dunno ... on desktop I don't use it (gentoo) ... on server I let other people handle it. I come from a background of various unix systems and one nice thing about it was that the init system was more or less the same ... location of the scripts changed but once you sorted out the filesystem layout everything worked as on other Sysvinit systems.

                  now that is no longer the case ... somebody from a modern linux distro has a hard time adapting to more traditional unix. I wonder why that is a good thing ....

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by haplo602 View Post
                    dunno ... on desktop I don't use it (gentoo) ... on server I let other people handle it. I come from a background of various unix systems and one nice thing about it was that the init system was more or less the same ... location of the scripts changed but once you sorted out the filesystem layout everything worked as on other Sysvinit systems.

                    now that is no longer the case ... somebody from a modern linux distro has a hard time adapting to more traditional unix. I wonder why that is a good thing ....
                    I used many different distributions before systemd was a thing and I had always to check how to write my init script. With systemd they are all the same and I can rely on exactly the same behavior between Linux distributions. I love it.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by timofonic View Post
                      As a desktop user...

                      The only systemd good thing is about using INI files.

                      Other than that, I just see stuff mostly targeted at servers.

                      Are there other stuff? Other than cannibalize projects and maintain them properly? On a purely feature basis, I understand standardization is good for developers and sysadmins.
                      Actually for desktop user systemd is a blessing. Start every daemon I *might* want to use at some point over the next several days and keep them in ram all the time? No, just let systemd listen to on the socket and start things on demand. AFAIK this is one the main reasons MacOS created launchd, which inspired systemd a lot.

                      The reason why we don't feel it that much is likely because not all projects make use of it yet. Gnome is getting better here lately, avoiding high ram usage and getting faster startup times (and ditching it's own session management - that's called KISS btw).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X