Arch Linux Is Switching To Systemd

[stqn]

The problem with systemd is that it?s again something new to learn and setup (more complicated than rc.conf) to do the exact same thing as before. I?d rather not have to do that. But then as all Arch devs seem to be unanimous on this, I?ll just have to take the time for it?

[markg85]

<snip>
Next step: registry?

Funny since there already is a "registry". Though desktop specific. Gnome uses gconf (or whatever it's called now) which basically is a registry for Gnome. KDE doesn't have that, rather is has per app configuration files.

[DeepDayze]

Good luck with that! LOL

Slackware isn't all that bad..it was the first distro I used in my early days of puttering with Linux back in '94. It took a lot of hair pulling but I got it working pretty nicely after 2 years so been using it for like a total of 10 years

Last I heard Debian is considering making the switch to systemd too

[ElderSnake]

This is a decent little read though: http://allanmcrae.com/2012/08/are-we...es-arch-linux/

I don't think I'm too concerned. Truth be known I did try Systemd on my netbook a month or so ago (on Arch). It was extremely simple to hook up and use, though it didnt make much difference on this hardware. Though I imagine converting to it fully will mean it'll be a bit different to the way I had it installed.

[septianix]

Oh well. Archlinux used to be my favorite distro on the Linux side. I liked the KISS principle, transparency and so on. The last time I tried systemd, it made my encrypted LVM system unbootable with no obvious way to fix it. Good thing I moved on...

[blackout23]

How much faster is it than, e.g., Upstart for comparable boot jobs? (Putting aside the earlier Phoronix hysterics article for a moment.)

2.8 Seconds. Case closed. Kernel + Userspace
http://s7.directupload.net/images/120815/je3nqk7u.png

Probably could save some time by adding "quiet" to kernel line because console slows boot down.

I like systemd it's not harder to use systemctl start xy.service than /etc/rc.d/networt start other than that
in my day to day work I don't encounter any advantages or disadvantages. Kind of miss the old rc.conf though.
When I set up my PC with the new install scripts I had to look up all the different files and what they contain.
Most of them don't exist when you set up you pc. A blank rc.conf with LOCALE= HOSTNAME= etc. makes it
easier to get everything pre configured without having to remember anything.

[ElderSnake]

Not sure what to think of this.

I understand the reasons but at the same time what I always loved about Arch and, I thought, was one of it's selling points, was it's old school and simple BSD-like init system.

It seems almost a bit un-Arch like, but meh, I'm sure it will be handled (hopefully) well and as far as I'm aware Systemd has backwards compatibility with the current init scripts, meaning you can sort have the best of both worlds anyway? I dunno, I'm no expert on this, I'm just a user.

[johnc]

It's written by the PulseAudio author. That alone makes it l33t.

Oh, and it also makes the system boot extremely fast. Not sure how important that is to people.

How much faster is it than, e.g., Upstart for comparable boot jobs? (Putting aside the earlier Phoronix hysterics article for a moment.)

[RealNC]

So what makes systemd so awesome?

It's written by the PulseAudio author. That alone makes it l33t.

Oh, and it also makes the system boot extremely fast. Not sure how important that is to people.

[not.sure]

I want to believe that the Spaceman is smart enough to change his mind on this.

If they're smart over at Ubuntu they'd probably support Debian's investigation of OpenRC, and -in case it happens- follow its adoption.