Originally posted by jacob
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Devuan 4.0 Alpha Builds Begin For Debian 11 Without Systemd
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by dreich View PostI'm afraid, systemd-resolved and systemd-networkd are not being used and much like the rest of systemd, are buggy and immature without solving the problem. This is an egregiously recurring theme.
Any evidence for how "buggy and immature" they are?
Originally posted by dreich View Post... and that. systemd-boot aka bad ol' gummiboot is not too new and yet here we are. Bad design coupled with hacks glued together. Just adding more does not make your system more integrated.
Originally posted by dreich View PostWhy?! You just admitted it is substandard. It's old software that does its job badly.
Originally posted by dreich View PostYeah, likeCode:machinectl su
Originally posted by dreich View PostDisparaging as this may seem, I'm not dumping on systemd. I just see it as another failure towards integration, marred by the ambitions, scope and design decisions of its creators. Their efforts could have provided us with an integrated system, but it never happened.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by andyprough View PostI fail to see the problem
Originally posted by andyprough View Post- it is perfectly adapted as a posix compliant parser especially for work on embedded systems, which is where s6 really shines.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jacob View Postit's dead on arrival for desktops or servers (meaning today's server environments, e.g. clouds, microservices, Kubernetes etc.)
- Likes 2
Comment
-
I am happy with regular Debian running systemd, and think it would be nice if systemd was even more integrated in Debian. As far as Devuan goes I assume that it might be obsolete in less than 10 years, but so what? I still welcome Devuan, and while someone may think it is wasted resources I think that is quite narrow minded. Stubborn people often have to be a bit more creative to find different solutions to the same problem. Some of these solutions may suck , while others may be unique and interesting. And even if the solution itself is not good a new way of thinking may contribute to others seeing things in a different light as well.
http://www.dirtcellar.net
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by waxhead View PostI am happy with regular Debian running systemd, and think it would be nice if systemd was even more integrated in Debian. As far as Devuan goes I assume that it might be obsolete in less than 10 years, but so what? I still welcome Devuan, and while someone may think it is wasted resources I think that is quite narrow minded. Stubborn people often have to be a bit more creative to find different solutions to the same problem. Some of these solutions may suck , while others may be unique and interesting. And even if the solution itself is not good a new way of thinking may contribute to others seeing things in a different light as well.
Will systemd be obsolete in 10 years' time? Maybe, maybe not, it means nothing either way. The purpose of software is not to stand immutable through time. If systemd becomes obsolete, it won't be a vindication of its detractors because by the same token, s6/init/runit/openrc/whatnot will be even more obsolete.
If Microsoft or Apple thought along the same lines, NT and OSX wouldn't exist; instead Windows would still be a brittle hodgepodge of hacks on top of MS-DOS and Apple's PR would be working overtime making up a "multitasking myth" to justify the idea that a cooperative OS is somehow better.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jacob View PostIt's not. S6 is not cleaner or leaner, it's a morass of ductape scripts that makes sysvinit look elegant. It also does not use cgroups, namespaces or capabilities and instead tries to implement service supervision using the meagre POSIX features alone, which has many known shortcomings.
But the main issue is not even that. S6 and 66 are an alternative to sysvinit, runit etc., not to systemd. It does not provide APIs to manage services, timers and other types of units programmatically. It does not create an integrated, tightly coupled environment like systemd does, which is the reason of its success (and not some imaginary red hat/IBM conspiracy).
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by Siuoq View PostThe Debian project literally only switched to systemd bc the GNOME guys said that they will depend on it. It was not a conspiracy, but a public threat and blackmail.
There is no more threat or blackmail than there is any conspiracy. GNOME depends on systemd because, tadaaaa, systemd provides useful features that GNOME don't want to have to reinvent. It's not their job to accommodate everyone's personal whims. The same goes for Debian: they adopted systemd because it's useful and because among other benefits it brought them better compatibility with Red Hat. If you want GNOME but don't want to install its dependencies because reasons, you have three options:
1 - fork it and modify it (e.g. reimplement session management and other features provided by systemd); or
2 - pay someone to do it for you; or
3 - stop whining.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by jacob View PostThe same goes for Debian: they adopted systemd because it's useful and because among other benefits it brought them better compatibility with Red Hat.
- Likes 4
Comment
Comment