Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Cloud Switches Over To Using Systemd By Default

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by stevenc View Post
    best get the popcorn ready if they're releasing 15.04 with this...
    Can I have some popcorn ?
    And I suggest you get a nice cup of STFU.

    Please note: NOT a Pottering fan here.

    Code:
    lsb_release -a
    No LSB modules are available.
    Distributor ID:	Ubuntu
    Description:	Ubuntu Vivid Vervet (development branch)
    Release:	15.04
    Codename:	vivid
    Code:
    uname -a
    Linux C10 4.0.0-rc2-c10-p-rt+ #13 SMP PREEMPT Tue Mar 3 22:44:29 EET 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    Code:
    ls -alh /sbin/init
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Feb 27 10:04 /sbin/init -> /lib/systemd/systemd
    Works flawlesly since the first moment I upgraded 14.10 to 15.04 alpha1.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by gQuigs View Post
      I'm excited... Not so much for systemd(-init) (I liked the ideas behind upstart a bit better), but for:
      * less fragmentation between Linux distros
      * the journal. Which gives much better, more consistant information on the state of your PC.
      I don't believe neither of those features, first of all there was never fragmentation, at least at the beggining, then Cannonical developed his own service manager and we have 2, but upstart was a ubuntu thing only, but sure it was available on Centos 6( I Believe). Then it arrive systemd to and the real fragmentation started. Gentoo with his own, other guys developing another service manager, forking systemd and removing bloatware. So there is framentation right know cause of systemd. And there will be more and more. Cause not all people like systemd.

      While I don't know if Apache sends logs to systemd, at least right know on Ubuntu I have to indicate a file for every virtual host on the configuration. Journalctl it looks like a tool to read texts logs. While It looks like useful, it could make things broke if developers start to send logs to systemd and that same package is used on a non-systemd distro. But, that's not new on systemd and is the cause of the trouble of using alternate init and service manager. The hard deppended packages of systemd


      Unity 8 and xfce session are still upstart jobs and need to be converted to work as systemd unit(?) as some other packages:

      http://people.canonical.com/~jhunt/s...2015-03-05.txt

      Comment


      • #13
        Let's use systemd.

        Hopefully they will migrate to systemd soon. Using upstart (as init) and systemd (as bunch of helpers and somesuch) is kinda silly. Not to mention half programs in Ubuntu are still using ancient init crap scripts, which are horrible to say the least. Honestly, I would prefer only systemd to manage my system and no other crap. Sysv init scripts are awful and ways to manage startup sequence are exceptionally crappy. And upstart ... while it is not that bad, it definitely losing to systemd in terms of features I would like to see.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by cocklover View Post
          I don't believe neither of those features, first of all there was never fragmentation, at least at the beggining,
          Blatant bullshit! Init scripts were never compatible across distros. Say, good luck to use init scripts from Centos in Ubuntu or vice versa. They tend have different paths here and there and you have to heavily patch scripts. And code of most scripts is just horrible to say the least. Most of scripters just insert parameters into code. So after scrolling three pages you can find offending path you should change. And if you fail to do it right ... er, good luck in debugging. There was even no standard means of logging startup problems. UTTER CRAP.

          Sysv init does not gives it a fuck to bunch of long-standing system administration challenges. Standard approach was to ignore all hardships and let admins face all problems on their own, being annoyance rather than admin's help. So everyone had to reinvent the wheel, eventually facing some corner cases which aren't anyhow pleasant to deal with through shell scripts and somesuch.

          That's not a way I want to manage services startup in my system for sure. Systemd can do it better than that. Because it is really hard to make it worse .
          Last edited by SystemCrasher; 04 March 2015, 11:58 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by cocklover View Post
            I don't believe neither of those features, first of all there was never fragmentation, at least at the beggining, then Cannonical developed his own service manager and we have 2, but upstart was a ubuntu thing only, but sure it was available on Centos 6( I Believe). Then it arrive systemd to and the real fragmentation started. Gentoo with his own, other guys developing another service manager, forking systemd and removing bloatware. So there is framentation right know cause of systemd. And there will be more and more. Cause not all people like systemd.
            You seem to remember this different from how I do. First sysv-init was not the first init system: That honor goes to bsd-style inits (basically just a script). When sysv-init was introduced we had huge discussions about replacing the simple elegance of one script with a mess of symlinks. Sysv-init was called a over-complicated aberration and a clear departure of Linux from the unix philosophy. History does repeat itself;-)

            Then Sysv-init was never one system in any sense of the word. Each and every distribution had its own set of helper functions and scripts and whatnot, that heavily differed from any other. At the same time there were lots of other init systems around. There was makefile based on, several that got rid of the symlinks by managing runlevels in a text file and lots of others.

            Upstart then came along and got the ball rolling. That is the biggest contribution from canonical to the Linux ecosystem: They kicked off a huge spurt of innovation with upstart. Systemd is one reaction to upstart by some guy that thought he could do better. I guess he was right:-)

            There still are a bunch of other init systems out there, like there always were, but systemd is the one that won for now and that will most likely be the default for the next couple of years.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
              And upstart ... while it is not that bad, it definitely losing to systemd in terms of features I would like to see.
              ye... i mean an init system that does not do DNS caching... so 1990's

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                Finally! No more stupid upstart behavior. When I install something it doesn't mean I want to have it started automatically.
                That behavior is caused by your package manager, not Upstream.
                When I want to disable some service I don't want to mess with stupid configuration files and put strange things in there. I want to be able to disable it via a simple command. Welcome, systemd. You're saving my time!
                Code:
                man update-rc.d
                Once again someone blaming his own incompetence on a piece of software.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by cocklover View Post
                  I don't believe neither of those features, first of all there was never fragmentation, at least at the beggining, then Cannonical developed his own service manager and we have 2, but upstart was a ubuntu thing only, but sure it was available on Centos 6( I Believe).
                  Go ahead, try to enable a service only for runlevel 4 on Debian, RHEL/CentOS, openSuse, Gentoo and Slackware (of course, where necessary in pre-systemd versions). Then come back and tell us how there was no fragmentation.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by gens View Post
                    ye... i mean an init system that does not do DNS caching... so 1990's
                    That is funny, I am running systemd and my PID1 (the actual init) does not do DNS caching. Maybe you try to inform yourself better before spreading lies. At this point, with all the expertise you claim to have, I can't believe that this is just a misunderstanding, it is pretty obvious that you spread this lies on purpose, degrading yourself to a troll and seriously damaging your image and the argument you try to make. Why should anyone believe something that a person has to say that is so obviously trying to spread misinformation?

                    Good work, making you look bad by yourself, dude.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                      That is funny, I am running systemd and my PID1 (the actual init) does not do DNS caching. Maybe you try to inform yourself better before spreading lies. At this point, with all the expertise you claim to have, I can't believe that this is just a misunderstanding, it is pretty obvious that you spread this lies on purpose, degrading yourself to a troll and seriously damaging your image and the argument you try to make. Why should anyone believe something that a person has to say that is so obviously trying to spread misinformation?

                      Good work, making you look bad by yourself, dude.
                      systemd-resolved ?
                      it's coming, don't worry

                      PS it's good that it isn't default as it isn't no where near being complete enough
                      i still mention it as it lives in the repo
                      Last edited by gens; 05 March 2015, 09:32 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X