Debian To Switch To Systemd Or Upstart

[GreatEmerald]

They should definitely go with systemd. I am yet to see any good reasons for using Upstart. Using OpenRC would make sense if they really want to have a single system throughout all the Debian variants, but it's a better idea to use systemd on Linux and OpenRC on BSDs. They'll have to package systemd anyway, so the only thing that they have to do to maintain both is have two sets of scripts - which are usually provided with the programs themselves, anyway.

Also, Ericg, your article is still overdue

A) They were voted into those positions. Blame democracy. What, you hate democracy?

Being voted into a position is well and all. But there are ethics. If you are in the power of making a choice, and have an external interest in one of the options, you are expected to forego the choice on the grounds that you are biased and thus not fit to make such a decision.

B) Upstart is used by Red Hat, which is a pretty big deal.

Was used. Not any more.

C) Upstart is More MATURE than SystemD (I don't care what I capitalize, lolz, I hope you OCD hurts), especially due to Red Hat assistance in its stabilization.

Or systemd is more mature than upSTART, because it's deployed on more distributions.

D) SystemD was thought of, coded, and made essentially linux only, while Upstart can be used on more platforms. Debian has a freebsd kernel too.

No it can't. Both are Linux-only, and for good reasons.

Systemd is terrible... why would I want to install something 100x larger than sysvinit just so I can get binary encoded logs I need a running system to read....

1. bloated
2. prefers binary/proprietary over plain text and useable
3. its new... alot of effort to get you 1 and 2. The current solutions work... if anything OpenRC or Debian startup should be extended to support the needed features.

I take it that you're one of those people who prefer X over Wayland.

What, don't you want to embrace the speed of systemd when booting your microwave oven ?

Why would your microwave oven not run Linux?

I haven't had to write services for SystemD yet, but here are my 2c:

Writing an upstart service that shuts down cleanly is nearly impossible, the documentation on upstart is practically non-existant, and every year or so, something changes so I need to re-do the upstart scripts.

Writing a sysvinit script is well documented and understood. A single script runs on many different systems happily and doesn't often hit edge cases.

Writing a OpenRC script is easy, documentation is clear. The script also keeps running over several years.


I would rate upstart as worse as a downgrade from sysvinit, because it is so finicky. Sure it is faster, but... sigh.
I would rate OpenRC as a significant upgrade over sysvinit, it is fast, reliable, easy to use, and currently still supported. I think upstart may be faster for startup, but I think OpenRC is faster for shutdown.

Writing a systemd service file is extremely easy. You don't need to know any programming languages, it's just an INI file. And the documentation is most excellent. The scripts also can run over several years. Plus the systemd service files have some very powerful and useful capabilities, like delay before application launch, scheduled launches, cgroups, etc.

GNOME does NOT require logind. Get your facts straight!

Speaking as a GNOME release team member. Suggest to stop making up bullshit (or I'll make you look like a fool :P).

Nah, he looks enough of a fool without any external help, actually.

Not all programs need to be cross-platform. System-level applications should focus on a single platform.

I don't think that this statement is substantiated in any way.

It's most definitely substantiated. systemd requires cgroups and other Linux-specific capabilities, because it makes good use of them. Trying to keep cross-platform would mean that it becomes a jack of all trades, master of none. Supporting only the lowest common denominator is not the way to go.

Monocultures are dangerous to any ecosystem. I hope that they go for Upstart, so that we have a large counterweight to systemd with Debian, Ubuntu and derivatives.

That makes no sense. This is not an ecosystem, the rules don't apply here at all. If anything, the only rule that would apply to this situation is natural selection ? the weak should perish, so the whole is stronger and more coherent. Fragmentation at a low level like that helps nobody.

[pingufunkybeat]

I take it that you're one of those people who prefer X over Wayland.

At THIS moment?

What do you run on your machine for day-to-day work?

[Ericg]

Honestly, Emerald, Forum threads like this only make me want to do it less and less -_- Though, if I DO do it, it'll probably be this thanksgiving or christmas because both holidays involve me being locked in the car with my family for 12 to 19 hours with nothing better to do..

[GreatEmerald]

At THIS moment?

What do you run on your machine for day-to-day work?

No. Why would you assume I mean at this moment, and not in general?..

Honestly, Emerald, Forum threads like this only make me want to do it less and less -_- Though, if I DO do it, it'll probably be this thanksgiving or christmas because both holidays involve me being locked in the car with my family for 12 to 19 hours with nothing better to do..

See, this thread is mostly just for stirring up controversy. It presents no technical explanations of any kind. So is it any wonder that it's just people on both sides saying unsubstantiated things based on feelings or impressions? An actual technical comparative article should have a different response (barring some trolls, those are always around).

[TheBlackCat]

TO CLARIFY, so that other people ARE NOT misinformed. Gnome does not depend directly upon logind, or systemd. What gnome depends upon is the DBUS Interfaces that Logind presents so that there is a UNIFYING effort in Linux. Now, to repeat: Logind is not required. Its DBUS interfaces, however, ARE-- specifically.. only 2 of them. What does that mean for people on non-systemd systems? You can continue to use Gnome and NOT logind, AS LONG AS you have a piece of software that supplies the necessary interfaces that are required.

Sorry, I am normally not one to defend trolls like that, but this is really grasping at straws. That is like saying:

TO CLARIFY, so that other people ARE NOT misinformed. Gnome does not depend directly upon gtk. What gnome depends upon is the software Interfaces that gtk presents so that there is a UNIFYING effort in Linux. Now, to repeat: gtk is not required. Its software interfaces, however, ARE. What does that mean for people on non-gtk systems? You can continue to use Gnome and NOT gtk, AS LONG AS you have a piece of software that supplies the necessary interfaces that are required.

Which is technically true, but that doesn't help anybody in the real world because that replacement does not exist and probably never will. So in practice, at the present time, yes GNOME most certainly does depend on logind. That might not always be the case (although it probably will), but it is the case now.

[brosis]

This discussion over at Debian makes me want to vomit.
The project lacks neutral informed benevolent dictator, who can ban all the canonical clowns out who are engaged into Debian fragmentation frenzy; and issue a requirement for other kernels/DEs to implement replacement libraries/sockets for projects depending on systemd subsystem, should it be absent. Thus, if project depends on systemd, but the lower stack does not use it, it should implement stubs/replacements.

And exactly then we will see what these anti-systemd clowns are made of, and they will not throttle Linux development.

[gens]

Oh my god gens, STAHP >_< People quoting wrong marketing articles is like the bane of my existence on these forums...

Fourth paragraph down in the very LWN article you linked...

...

You want to go out and make a new login program like logind, but that isnt logind? Awesome, great, maintain backwards compatibility with the DBUS API's and no one will care.

ye, you right
seems there is much confusion in that part, maybe 'cuz its listed as "dependancy"
i dont have time nor patience to read the source codes so i read what ppl that do write
whats wrong with that ?

the whole "systemd taking over the world" probably stems from systemd absorbing udev


still i wont be convinced cuz
i was convinced on this forum, using logic, that pulseaudio can be minimal overhead 'cuz zero copy
half year later i started learning low level stuff (mostly "advanced" cpu programming) and found out that zero copy is not as great as it sounds (its still copy, memory still blocked)


all of it brings nothing i need or will probably ever need, only "integration" and reinventing the wheel
il wait and see


if you got a link to a proper discussion about the low level part of systemd, id be happy to read it

just be sure its not a rant about how great it is by the people who made it (lots of that on the 'net) as i like having two sides
it brings objectivity

PS "marketing articles".... rly ?
read lennarts blog (the most linked thing about systemd on phoronix), it starts with marketing and ends with marketing
so dont judge when others do what you do

[bkor]

are you sure ?
as stated here you can check it to be true that gnome needs systemd (read first couple comments for clarity)

alternative is console-kit, that is dead upstream so its not a real alternative

also "its open source so you can make it run that way" is not an answer

ConsoleKit is not maintained and dead, so that is a real problem. But that means someone should either take up maintenance, or provide an alternative. It still works though and a few distributions still rely on ConsoleKit. Though Ubuntu patched + packaged logind :P

I've raised the maintenance problem many many times. The LWN article addresses various things. One is optional dependencies on various systemd bits. Then for session tracking there are only two solutions: ConsoleKit, logind. One is not maintained, the other is tied to systemd since v205. That nobody has an alternative is funny. It is like saying "OMG you're evil for needing session tracking!".

I am not sure what you mean with your last statement.

[Ericg]

Which is technically true, but that doesn't help anybody in the real world because that replacement does not exist and probably never will. So in practice, at the present time, yes GNOME most certainly does depend on logind. That might not always be the case (although it probably will), but it is the case now.

While I see your point, BlackCat, I would argue that re-implementing 2 DBUS interfaces is significantly easier than re-implementing all of GTK... Its a matter of scale.

[bkor]

Which is technically true, but that doesn't help anybody in the real world because that replacement does not exist and probably never will. So in practice, at the present time, yes GNOME most certainly does depend on logind. That might not always be the case (although it probably will), but it is the case now.

Nope, we still support ConsoleKit. Though that's totally dead and all the whiners should maybe start maintaining that!