Systemd 214 Comes "Stuffed With Great New Features"

[GreatEmerald]

So, I wonder if the latest systemd features could help make things like sandboxing Skype easier. Hmm...

[prodigy_]

The idea behind systemd is old and proven.

Too bad the implementation is deliberately broken.

I love how i can check which services started and which died without digging through messages and other logs trying to find why something is not up.

You forgot to mention that "digging" here means "issuing one command."

And being able to create dependencies is also great.

Welcome to LSB.

[varikonniemi]

Too bad the implementation is deliberately broken.

Care to elaborate? I would think proving that something is clearly broken would warrant a fix, or if systemd is incompatible with the fix then a new project is spawned.

[interested]

Too bad the implementation is deliberately broken.

So you say that systemd developers from Debian, Red Hat and independent kernel developers, _deliberately_ broke systemd?

This is just a so typical systemd detractor "argument"; totally devoid of any technical content, but full of tin-foil hat crazy conspiracies.

That kind of utter nonsense is exactly why systemd have won a total victory in the Linux world. Script based init-system proponents have been reduced to a bunch of swivel eyed loonies.

You were a tiny minority to begin with, and you have continuously scared away developers with your lack of technical insights and crazy conspiracies. This is a major reason why there is no coherent non-systemd development in the Linux world any more. Who will want to work together with rabid conspiracy freaks, that direct their vitriolic accusation in every direction and at everyone? The systemd detractors have already alienated many upstreams developers with their wild and unfounded accusations, so watch how upstream start to pull non-systemd support from their software.

As it is now, then it looks like all script based init-systems will disappear from both Linux and *BSD in the future.

[ceage]

[...] I find it funny when BSD users jumps Linux threads, saying systemd is bad because they have issues with Lennarts personality.

The whole issue is a social one anyway. As many of us know very well, using BSD, or any other OS, for that matter, can be a means to identify oneself as part of a social group. Having Linux technologies invade BSD space makes people feel their identities are being threatened. I think that's a valid concern, but technology doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[prodigy_]

Care to elaborate? I would think proving that something is clearly broken would warrant a fix, or if systemd is incompatible with the fix then a new project is spawned.

It's been elaborated over and over in previous threads. Use forum search if you're really interested. And no, you can fix a broken design. You can only throw away the design and start over from scratch.

[psychoticmeow]

It's been elaborated over and over in previous threads. Use forum search if you're really interested. And no, you can fix a broken design. You can only throw away the design and start over from scratch.

Nobody is interested in reading the bullshit you've been crapping out constantly.

[interested]

It's been elaborated over and over in previous threads. Use forum search if you're really interested. And no, you can fix a broken design. You can only throw away the design and start over from scratch.

No it hasn't. Systemd isn't broken by design, unlike script based init systems like SysVinit and OpenRC. Come on, who thought it would be a good idea to have executable config files for services, where code and config statements are mixed up in an unstructured text file?

[Vim_User]

Not yet, but as you know, systemd is more than an init system. The best proof for that this GSoC project is in fact a clone of a part of systemd, is its statement, where the poor developer spend all the time explaining how this project isn't systemd related even though it is exactly like systemd. All that denial wouldn't be needed if this GSoC project couldn't be used as building block for a systemd clone.

It will probably take the BSD guys a few years to have cloned the parts of systemd they want. Sure, they will pull their sad faces and claim that this new init system was forced upon them from external circumstances, but also claim it is entirely unlike systemd, because it is called "SystemB" (as in SystemBSD) with capital letters. And that the "SystemB" lead developer, "Theo de Raadt" from OpenBSD, unlike Lennart Poettering is known for being a humble, ego-less guy with a mellow, easy-going attitude towards everybody.

Again, they are not at all cloning systemd, all they do is writing software that provides the DBUS interfaces provided by some systemd components. Claiming that this would be cloning is the same as claiming that Wine is a Windows clone.

[Vim_User]

No it hasn't. Systemd isn't broken by design, unlike script based init systems like SysVinit and OpenRC. Come on, who thought it would be a good idea to have executable config files for services, where code and config statements are mixed up in an unstructured text file?

Thanks for showing us that you actually have no clue what you are talking about.