Systemd 236 Brings Support For LUKS2 Encrypted Partitions, New Options

[aht0]

You must have missed the discussion on debian-devel then as you put the whole thing upside down.

It's the anti-systemd folks who are constantly sparking the discussion about it on the mailing lists, not the other way around:

> https://lists.debian.org/debian-deve.../msg00131.html

It's these people that simply cannot accept that the vast majority of developers and users are happy with it.

Quoting Russ:
I mean, seriously, the fact that you are making this comment is the best proof that your whole argument is completely upside down.

I am talking off my own experience. Like recent shit I saw - one guy announced in a second post of a thread that he had seen a bug with systemd - which was followed by 'active defense' by 'pro-systemd crowd'.

I see this defense far more often than not going personal, insulting and demagogic. IF the software is good, then why? It's illogical.

And no, I don't follow Linux threads THAT closely, I generally keep eye only on BSD threads and read other threads more or less randomly.

From my POV - GNU Linux has systemd. Add unified package manager and then.. what ya got? How the distros are supposed to differ? What used to be main strength of the Linux is going to be gone. You've seen one distro - you have seen most , differences are going to be rather cosmetic. Systemd used to bother me - no more is it so. Noticeable amount of folks are migrating to BSD OSes from Linux because of it. Your loss, our gain.

Yeah, you could use OpenRC, rc.d or sysv but lots of software are becoming rather tightly integrated with systemd. Shims are not going to quite cut it. BSD systems are having already lots of problems porting software. Same future is waiting non-systemd distros of Linux.

Btw.. biggest sysv problem for sysadmins was supposedly it's inability to return current service status. THAT could have been fixed by simply using RC.D init, which has the ability.
Systemd is like responding to a need with ultimate feature creep possible. Also scripting, which was once viewed as ultimate flexibility suddenly became major liability. Funny how things change.

[F.Ultra]

I am talking off my own experience. Like recent shit I saw - one guy announced in a second post of a thread that he had seen a bug with systemd - which was followed by 'active defense' by 'pro-systemd crowd'.

I see this defense far more often than not going personal, insulting and demagogic. IF the software is good, then why? It's illogical.

Link?

[aht0]

Link?

Jesus, search for it yourself if you are THAT interested. Or is it an attempt to take look at that link, find "something" and try to discredit me through it, since you could not pick on anything else I wrote? - It's a classic trick of a demagogue. Which is also typical to systemd threads.

In my opinion case with systemd is a ideologic or perhaps religious. So arguments and facts mean nothing to either side anyway. Either side is going to simply studiously ignore everything from opponents while trying to prove their God is the best. Stupid either way.

[arokh]

I think your comment might be an example of what phred14 was referring to when he pointed out how systemd fans often want everyone to run systemd. You suggest to gens that he runs systemd or writes an alternative init daemon. This is a false dichotomy. gens also has the option of using one of the many pre-existing init daemons on one of the high quality distros that support them.

You mind pointing out where I suggest that he runs systemd? Looking at my post, the first bulletpoint I made says "1. Don't use systemd". That's always an option, nobody is trying to force him not me not anyone else. I don't know if you guys are hallucinating or what, in that case stay off the damn internet.

If you don't like systemd, don't use it. Use something else, create your own, do whatever the hell you want. But don't try to convince sane people that it takes away any of your freedom, because it doesn't.

[aht0]

If you don't like systemd, don't use it. Use something else, create your own, do whatever the hell you want. But don't try to convince sane people that it takes away any of your freedom, because it doesn't.

Out of curiosity, can you prove that using or not using systemd with a "piece of software x" are both equally easy/hard tasks? Or it's just emotional lash-out?

For example, if something has been coded since inception with systemd in mind, then "shimming" it out to work without systemd means extra efforts, with complicated software the effort overhead would be significant - it would also invalidate your claims deader than doornail.

If you cannot, you cannot actually claim it does not take away any freedoms.

"sane people" is also weird expression. You judge somebody to be sane or not. Based on what, exactly?

Systemd takes allot away from my freedom. It's pure evil.

Equally weird. What exactly did you lose?

[Michael_S]

Can't they maintain two branches? A Rust branch for early adopters and the C branch for all of the rest? Or the Rust branch by default and the C branch as some sort of LTS for the platforms where Rust is not available yet?

I'm sure they can, but it's not clear that they want to. I don't know if any of the systemd core contributors are Rust fans.

[Michael_S]

Out of curiosity, can you prove that using or not using systemd with a "piece of software x" are both equally easy/hard tasks? Or it's just emotional lash-out?

For example, if something has been coded since inception with systemd in mind, then "shimming" it out to work without systemd means extra efforts, with complicated software the effort overhead would be significant - it would also invalidate your claims deader than doornail.

If you cannot, you cannot actually claim it does not take away any freedoms.

"sane people" is also weird expression. You judge somebody to be sane or not. Based on what, exactly?



Equally weird. What exactly did you lose?

He didn't say that using systemd and not using systemd require an equal amount of effort. He simply said you have the option of doing either one.

The maintainers of any free software operating system distribution don't owe us anything. You want an operating system with systemd? You have three choices:

1. Pick one that already exists.
2. Write your own and try to start a community that will help.
3. Pay others to make one.

You want an operating system without systemd? You have three choices:

1. Pick one that already exists.
2. Write your own and try to start a community that will help.
3. Pay others to make one.

Notice a pattern? Currently, option 1 is better if you want to use systemd. You can pick from Debian and its derivatives, Fedora and its derivatives, Gentoo, Arch, Nix. Option 1 is harder if you don't want systemd: Gentoo, GuixSD, Void, Devuan. But in either case, none of the relative communities owe you, me, or anyone else the right to dictate which init system they use or even what features in it they support.

If we step outside of major distros then there are also others, like Runit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runit but I have never used it and have seen some conflicting opinions on its quality/features (while it is still better than sysvinit, anything is better than sysvinit). AFAIK it is running the show in Void Linux distro, still not what comes to mind when someone mentions "high quality distro" anyway, it's nice and all, but it's not a major distro.

I ran Void Linux for a while and liked it. That was three or four years ago, but at least at the time the maintainer did an amazing job making it stable and usable. So for anyone that wants to try it, give it a go.

But it's not as accessible to Linux novices as, say, Xubuntu, Ubuntu, or Ubuntu Mate (which never require using a terminal shell). I stick with those distributions so I have recent experience when I recommend a distribution to friends or family.

[aht0]

He didn't say that using systemd and not using systemd require an equal amount of effort. He simply said you have the option of doing either one.

Nitpicking again, for whatever reason. You could chew over particular set of words and grammar forever trying to argue me. And get nowhere, besides proving MY point as you do it.

First, use the search function. Find yourself bunch of "systemd threads" and read them through.

You are soon going to notice some trends, which at extremes boil down to:
- I hate systemd, it's evil..
- Stupid, go fuck yourself. Find something else then. It's perfect.

And everything inbetween those 2 attitudes, where mild comment like "I had issue a with v b" could bring forth literal shitstorm.. And also the opposite - Dude telling how he appreciates systemd making his life easier could bring forth "I fucking hate it you..."

Don't you even notice it, or think there is something, like wrong, with the situation? You want software freedom, tolerance und so weiter but reserve the freedom to dictate what someone else should or should not use or do..?

Pattern repeats over and over - and I am not going to provide specific examples - or there'd be bunch trying to dissect them character by character trying to prove me wrong or nitpick on particulars until whatever I posted drowns in the "noise of nitpick".

Grow up, please. It's software..

[unixfan2001]

is "standardization" a technical argument ?

Yes. Yes, it is.
Standardization usually improves interoperability and allows for more stringent documentation.

As for what i learned was that people that argue here, on reddit, and even on hackernews don't even know how an init works, let alone how the whole thing systemd is replacing works.
But they very much know how to tell others that *they* don't know anything.

What I learned on Reddit, Hackernews and Phoronix is that people often don't even know the difference between a simple init system and a system/service manager.
Contrary to popular belief, the two are not the same thing. Hence systemd and sysvinit aren't even comparable. It's an apple to elephants comparison.

[arokh]

Out of curiosity, can you prove that using or not using systemd with a "piece of software x" are both equally easy/hard tasks? Or it's just emotional lash-out?

I have made no such claim, so why the hell should I prove that? Pay attention and try to read before posting such dribble.

For example, if something has been coded since inception with systemd in mind, then "shimming" it out to work without systemd means extra efforts, with complicated software the effort overhead would be significant - it would also invalidate your claims deader than doornail.

What code is it you are speaking of that has been coded with systemd in mind, and who the hell is shimming it out and what does it have to do with this discussion at all? Get a grip son.

If you cannot, you cannot actually claim it does not take away any freedoms.

So basically, you're telling me that you have no idea how open works. That's the only thing I am getting from your nonsense.

"sane people" is also weird expression. You judge somebody to be sane or not. Based on what, exactly?

It's not a weird expression, it's a perfectly normal expression used in every language and culture on the planet. The definition is "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception", so for example a complete Linux noob going ballistic in online discussions regarding an open source and free init system trying to argue that it takes away his freedom. Then he is definitely in a state of mind that prevents normal perception. Check out the handle "debianxfce" on this forum for a perfect example.

Again, systemd has already won and has been chosen by the major distributions. Nobody is being forced to use it, everyone is still free to use any distribution they like. There's no valid arguments against systemd.