Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Uselessd: A Stripped Down Version Of Systemd

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by wardhan View Post
    atlast somebody instead of whining & doing nothing, STARTED something..
    let's see how the community will react, respond & contribute.
    Indeed, Even though I don't agree with uselessd, I't nice to see the anti-systemd camp do something (even though it's only one person so far).

    Comment


    • #52
      Yes choice makes Linux. Personally I'm eagerly awaiting the day systemd does away with rpm/deb etc. in userland.

      Comment


      • #53
        Strange

        Many systemd haters argue systemd is wrong project from its beginning because it tends to be odd and very complicated and is going to take control over the whole system. If it has sense, why not to switch to runit as classic SysVinit-like init? If not, why there were no serious oponenture to Lennart all the years he was hard working on systemd? Strange case... Simply use systemd if it meets your desires (or it is sipmply funcional) or switch to runit!

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by NotMine999 View Post
          ...remind me of the old days when people argued about "Windows versus Apple Whatever".

          With all the mis-spellings, senseless rants, sockpuppetry, "confusing the issues with somewhat off-the-mark quotes", and so on...

          Those of us that lived through the "OS battles" have "grown up", "had kids", and "figured out there were more important things to waste our time arguing about".

          Here's to hoping this new generation, whatever they are called, follows the same path as us oldsters....
          Those were the days when us who moved past DOS vs MacOS embraced UNIX and laughed at them both.

          The only difference is today's minutia is fixated on low level services [something virtually no one gives a crap about beyond working well and staying out of the way of effing up your user space experience].

          Comment


          • #55
            "is" or "has been"?

            Originally posted by pininety View Post
            Systemd IS modular. Read http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html, first Myth.
            But most distros just do not bother with this because most elements are very handy for them.
            Modularity of systemd is not a mantra but dependancy of its level of complexity. More complex (integrating more and more from system and user-space) systemd will be, less modular can be. Why huge linux distros suffer from "dependancy hell" whilst light ones do not? This is the problem Lennart personally know about but only pushes it ahead... We have runit as a SysVinit-style init so let us use it instead systemd if systemd seems to be a problem. If we have no conceptual problem with systemd, give our paches or enhencement ideas to Lennart to lead systemd to optimality. By the way, you may keep attention of what has been with systemd and what is and wiil be with. Some myth busters have become quickly outdated...

            Comment


            • #56
              Systemd stripped down to a pure init replacement (i.e. without all the crap that has been stitched to it - and especially without journald) is something I could tolerate.

              At the very least this project proves that journald isn't as essential as Lennart wants to make it look.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                Systemd stripped down to a pure init replacement (i.e. without all the crap that has been stitched to it - and especially without journald) is something I could tolerate.

                At the very least this project proves that journald isn't as essential as Lennart wants to make it look.
                journald is great, albeight it might not be implemented optimally for my taste. It might not be essential functionally but by that standard nothing except kernel really is.

                You _could_ do without libraries etc, but most people probably wouldn't want to.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post
                  While systemd has been against supporting anything other than linux, glibc, and the like (which is well within their right to do), uselessd is doing quite the opposite and apparently succeeding at running on FreeBSD, using other libcs such as musl and uclibc, and getting rid of the gnu-isms while still managing to be a systemd-compatible init system. That makes uselessd a viable option for a lot of people where systemd is not - even before you start talking about how they've stripped down systemd.
                  Not quite. Read their FAQ more closely:

                  Originally posted by uselessd FAQ
                  So far, uselessd compiles on BSD libc with a kiloton of warnings, with lots of gaps and comments in the code, and macros/substitutions in other places. All in all, it is an eldritch abomination.
                  ...
                  Because of its very early and unstable nature (read: it doesn't work), we do not officially package it yet.
                  That's a *long* way short of "succeeding at running on BSD"... basically, it compiles, but only if you provide stubs for all the Linux-only bits. Not actual working replacements for those bits, just empty function definitions in order to keep the compiler and linker happy. I doubt this will ever actually run successfully on non-Linux...

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by pjezek View Post
                    ... why not to switch to runit as classic SysVinit-like init? ...
                    runit is not as "advanced" as launchd (or systemd).

                    Originally posted by pjezek View Post
                    ... why there were no serious oponenture to Lennart ...
                    What is "oponenture"?


                    @pininety:
                    ... if a libc which claims to be compatible with glibc ...
                    To my knowledge, no alternative libc claims to be (fully) compatible with glibc. So this is a bogus argument.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by pjezek View Post
                      Modularity of systemd is not a mantra but dependancy of its level of complexity. More complex (integrating more and more from system and user-space) systemd will be, less modular can be.
                      First of all, this is not true. This can happen but is not something fundamental that will happen and you cannot change it.

                      Originally posted by pjezek View Post
                      Why huge linux distros suffer from "dependancy hell" whilst light ones do not?
                      Sorry, but how do huge distros suffer more from "dependancy hell" then small ones?
                      Either I want a package and need its dependencies or not. Hell only comes into play then you have a lot
                      of packages depending on say a lib but they all need different versions (or are incompatible with a new version of this lib)
                      If you mean "huge distros install a lot of stuff I do not want and that causes trouble" then you are right.
                      But huge distros normally cater to a big audience so something that you see as useless might be essential to work out of the box for the next guy.

                      Originally posted by pjezek View Post
                      We have runit as a SysVinit-style init so let us use it instead systemd if systemd seems to be a problem. If we have no conceptual problem with systemd, give our paches or enhencement ideas to Lennart to lead systemd to optimality.
                      So use something else, I am not going to stop you. But if you do, do not complain to systemd if something is not working for you.

                      Originally posted by pjezek View Post
                      By the way, you may keep attention of what has been with systemd and what is and wiil be with. Some myth busters have become quickly outdated...
                      So which myth do you mean? Which change since this myth buster was written did make systemd less modular?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X