Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

systemd 256 Released With run0, systemd-vpick, importctl & Other New Features

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • systemd 256 Released With run0, systemd-vpick, importctl & Other New Features

    Phoronix: systemd 256 Released With run0, systemd-vpick, importctl & Other New Features

    Systemd 256 is out today as the latest major feature update to this integral component to modern Linux distributions...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, Systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning Systemd system made useful by the Systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

    Many computer users run a modified version of the Systemd system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Systemd which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Systemd system, developed by the Systemd Project.

    There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the Systemd operating system: the whole system is basically Systemd with Linux added, or Systemd/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of Systemd/Linux!

    Jokes aside, excited to try the new features and mainly run0! Cheers for another great release!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by cassiofb-dev View Post
      I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, Systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning Systemd system made useful by the Systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
      This turns into a rabbit hole.
      What is the most common service init inside initramfs/initrd(initial RAM disk)​​ part of the Linux kernel startup.


      The the reality is most systems have two init systems. The initramfs/initrd init that most commonly kinit from klibc and the system init that today is mostly commonly systemd.

      The initramfs/initrd init has a requirement not to use a huge libc like glibc or Musl C library because that drive is going away and most things load from it also have to go away after the system has fully started. The Linux kernel can be built with a initrd bundled into the kernel image. Also the Linux kernel source code does contain some user space programs need in the initrd.,

      Yes it is possible to built a klibc+Linux kernel only distribution has been done for a few firewall devices.

      cassiofb-dev the plus bits stack up very quickly. So that in fact Linux/Systemd is also wrong because you could add a stack more / of different parts required like the klibc, glibc and so on. There comes a point we all know its wrong and its too complex to say the correct answer so go for the shorted incorrect answer to say.

      Comment


      • #4
        this integral component to modern Linux distributions
        "Integral", really?? I run "modern" distros every day without systemd. Several of them. And there are a lot more that I don't run. You might ask, "how is that possible? You can't run any modern distros without their integral components!!"

        That being said, I love running Trisquel, which does have systemd. But calling it 'integral' is wayyyy over the top. In fact, there are several distros that probably run better on nearly every metric without using systemd. I'm thinking especially of Void and Gentoo and Alpine. There's absolutely nothing you can do with systemd as init that isn't being done as well or better with numerous other init systems on a daily basis.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
          ...There comes a point we all know its wrong and its too complex to say the correct answer so go for the shorted incorrect answer to say.
          GNU/Linux - got to get me some!

          "No Gnews is good Gnews."
          -- Gary Gnu

          Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andyprough View Post
            Tere's absolutely nothing you can do with systemd as init that isn't being done as well or better with numerous other init systems on a daily basis.
            How about cgroups integration? Declarative configuration? Comprehensively solved dependency management, including dependencies on devices, networks, timers, user sessions, sockets etc? Actual official way to start a service instead of the double fork nonsense? API as the primary means of interaction, not text files? I can't think of a single "other init system" on Linux that fulfills at least one of those criteria, let alone all of them like systemd does.

            As for the "many" "modern" distros that run so well without systemd, most of them include systemd components anyway (udev to begin with), and basically only Alpine is not a hobby or tantrum project, and that's because it's used as a container distro where there is no "init" at all.
            Last edited by jacob; 12 June 2024, 02:06 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by andyprough View Post
              That being said, I love running Trisquel, which does have systemd. But calling it 'integral' is wayyyy over the top. In fact, there are several distros that probably run better on nearly every metric without using systemd. I'm thinking especially of Void and Gentoo and Alpine. There's absolutely nothing you can do with systemd as init that isn't being done as well or better with numerous other init systems on a daily basis.

              Gentoo default is systemd with openrc and your secondary. The reality is gentoo users are more often systemd than the alternatives these days.

              Void and Alpine these users are not systemd. The particularly systemd still does not get along with musl libc they use.


              Better on every metric without systemd I would not say so in all cases. People who review this stuff have started to see that systemd service management being better than your old init scripts has caused some problems. This has resulted some applications are depending on being able to cleanly restart their services without having todo house keeping because systemd cgroup usage around services will do the house keeping. This equal I am horrible broken application with the lack of full service management solutions like the older Init system alpine and the like uses.

              Alpine happen to be worse dealing with modern applications coded to depend on the systemd/cgroup service house keeping.

              Openrc that gentoo second option also support cgroup house keeping of services if you turn it on.

              Systemd was the first to-do cgroup house keeping of services on Linux. This cgroup house keeping of services is coming kind of a required feature to have a stable nice time. Key thing about it is you terminate a service and all parts of that service in the cgroup are killed you don't end up with random fragments staying running causing problems when you attempt to start the service again.

              andyprough; there is a limited number of init systems for Linux that have cgroup house keeping of services. The number is less than 5.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jacob View Post
                How about cgroups integration? Declarative configuration? Comprehensively solved dependency management, including dependencies on devices, networks, timers, user sessions, sockets etc? Actual official way to start a service instead if the double fork nonsense? API as the primary means of interaction, not text files? I can't think of a single "other init system" on Linux that fulfills at least one if those criteria, let alone all of them like systemd does.

                As for the "many" "modern" distros that run so well without systemd, most of them include systemd components anyway (udev to begin with), and basically only Alpine is not a hobby or tantrum project, and that's because it's used as a container distro where there is no "init" at all.
                cgroups? dependency management? declarative? Isn't that just a description of some features of s6 with the 66 service manager? Which, based on my (albeit limited) experience, will "run better on nearly every metric" compared to a systemd init setup.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by andyprough View Post

                  "Integral", really?? I run "modern" distros every day without systemd. Several of them. And there are a lot more that I don't run. You might ask, "how is that possible? You can't run any modern distros without their integral components!!"

                  That being said, I love running Trisquel, which does have systemd. But calling it 'integral' is wayyyy over the top. In fact, there are several distros that probably run better on nearly every metric without using systemd. I'm thinking especially of Void and Gentoo and Alpine. There's absolutely nothing you can do with systemd as init that isn't being done as well or better with numerous other init systems on a daily basis.
                  14 linux without systemd https://itsfoss.com/systemd-free-distros/

                  plus:
                  Dragora GNU/Linux-Libre
                  Hyperbola GNU/Linux-Libre
                  Parabola OpenRC GNU/Linux-Libre
                  Guix GNU/Linux-Libre
                  PeppermintOS option non systemD (Devuan based)​

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    .. still the same old tired debates about SystemD on this forum every time it's mentioned..
                    If SystemD bothers you so much, go use one of those 'SystemD-free' distros and chill out

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X