Systemd Rolls Out Its Own Mount Tool

[Delgarde]

The mount tool isn't being dropped and there are no indications that it will be dropped in the future. This is just systemd project that instead of adding a feature that would work only on systemd systems back to GNU mount tool decided to make its own fork.

More generally, systemd is responsible for mounting partitions, therefore it needs to either fork and run the command-line mount command, or it can invoke the kernel mount operations directly. And if you're going to do the latter (which is fairly sensible), it's not unreasonable to provide a command-line interface around your own code. It's really no big deal...

[Delgarde]

Oh, and a small correction for those who keep referring to "GNU mount" - there's no such thing. The mount command used on most Linux distros is provided by the util-linux package, which has nothing to do with GNU. And from what I see, this is true in general - very little of the functionality assimilated by systemd is provided by GNU, because most of it is system-level stuff that integrates with the kernel, whereas GNU mostly provide user-oriented tools.

[Delgarde]

However, there is a bad thing when it comes to systemd: as long as the community is not in charge of it, they don't have proper control over it and are subjugated by the developers' ideals.

Which community are you talking about? The community of people who do work - who contribute code, who package things for distros, who help by doing testing? Or do you mean the 'community' of people posting anonymously on forums about how nobody cares about their opinions? Does it really surprise you that developers take one of these groups more seriously than the others?

[Amarildo]

Which community are you talking about?

The people who are not allowed to contribute to the source code.

[Doodzor]

I wonder what the security implications of everything being put into one large project blob that´s not getting a lot of code review...

Spoken like a true troll who has no idea what they are talking about. systemd's development process only looks like this in the imaginations of people who haven't bothered to investigate the reality.

[unixfan2001]

The people who are not allowed to contribute to the source code.

The project is open source and can be found on Github.
Learn Git and the art of merge requests and you will be fine.

The only thing keeping you from contributing is your own limited knowledge.

[aht0]

there are linuxes which will boot in one second, switch on your brain and compare equal package setup(no, "both desktops are kde" is not equal setup). btw, distros are often do first-time initialization on first boot

You got point here. I actually left out first-time initialization, since OpenSUSE does it. I did not time that. I timed first boot when all setup was done, user accounts created and machine came up supposedly "ready". Most of the stuff installed "by default" is not being started on boot anyway. Not even Libreoffice, which gets loaded into memory only after you log in.

comparing 1-second booting strip-down Linux to the FreeBSD would be equal? That's just demagogic.

also you failed to see two things here
1) default suse install contains much more software, i.e. it is much more valuable
2) you wasted 15 min of your time due to freebsd shortcomings. i value my time more than my computer's time

2) be as nice as to clarify the perceived shortcomings? I am curious because I do value my computer time Ill-logic of your statement is somewhat confusing.,

Which is more waste of time?
a) spending time installing only what I need
b) spending time, manually uninstalling/deselecting unnecessary offerings from installer to get what I need.

[arokh]

As per usual, the anti-systemd crowd have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Makes for entertaining threads though!

[DMJC]

How many people are working on systemd? I've been involved in several open source projects, and usually there's one or two contributors writing 90% of the code and then patches get submitted by the other few developers who work on the code. Often a lot of projects die because the lead developer moves on and noone else manages to step up to the plate and keep going. I am genuinely curious about how systemd is developed. Are there thousands of developers working on it, or is it poettering and a few devs? He seems to be taking on a lot of core system services and I want to know how that is manageable by one person, or has he got a team and he's just the guy getting all the press? Given the recent NSA revelations I don't think it's trolling to be concerned that at the same time we know that OSX/Windows have had massive breaches, Linux is having it's guts torn out and replaced. I like to know if anyone is safeguarding this work against NSA (or otherwise) interference. It's a valid concern. I know that the OpenBSD developers are paranoid and it turns out that paranoia has actually been spot on. I like to know if similar precautions are being taken with Linux considering I'm using it for banking, finance, and sensitive transactions.

[aht0]

As per usual, the anti-systemd crowd have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Makes for entertaining threads though!

Enlighten us then. Just bashing one target group serves readers no better..

As I see it, pro-systemd are mostly professional admins (read who work for a living and get paid for it) who see it as a tool to make their life easier.

Linux desktop users generally need systemd less than hog needs tits, some don't care, some are against it, some are supporting.

Another group against it are users/devs of other Unix-like OSes who see systemd as something that makes their lives harder in quite multiple ways..