Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Are you for or against systemd?
Some people, I think, are very receptive to change. But others appear to think that, "if it was good enough for a PDP-7 at Bell Labs in the 1970's, it's still good enough today!"
Well, "like it or not, that's just not true."
You seem to be deploying a lot of anecdotes and rhetoric to get across the old and tired "some people just don't like change". This is common systemd proponent propaganda - i.e. that there is an ongoing struggle against ignorant luddites. This kind of thing can also be read in many blogs by key systemd people such as Lennart Poettering.
There have always been industry approved tools, such as puppet, etc, for managing multiple boxes remotely - it's not the only solution. Again it's one of the main arguments of systemd proponents that systemd has features which simply have no analog and have never been developed before and are unavailable elsewhere. These arguments have been made countless times and disproved or are still very much open to debate... Personally I regard systemd as a Red Hat backed "standardisation" attempt rather than innovation.
and the fact that making things work often required copying from /usr/local/bin to usr/bin.
I don't know either. I don't install libsystemd dependencies so I cannot test. Just wondering if a symlink in /usr/bin is good enough to point default sytemctl rules to /usr/local/bin files. Instead of copying. I would need to rent a uhaul truck to move/copy all my files and directories in /usr/local/bin to /usr/bin.
Linux/Gnu it seems is trying to become bi-lingual and finding different ways to say the same thing. When it does not need to complicate things even more. But I am just a uneducated linux user with no formal computer schooling. So I can be off base in my reasoning.
But I never grew up emotionally and when I don't like something. I just don't like it.
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
While please continue by all means to discuss systemd, I'd just like to say you all deserve a BIG pat on the back, for being VERY respectful in expressing your views!
I think it says a lot about the quality of LQ members (which is all GOOD and A grade!), the fact that we can have a very civil discussion about a very controversial issue.
Well done to everyone, who has partaken in this thread!
My distribution uses systemd, so I guess I'm for it. The parts of it I've interacted with have worked well and in a coherent way. As I said in another thread, I've really only had some problems with my system taking longer than expected (15-30 seconds?) to shut down, but that hasn't happened lately.
I'm definitely skeptical of re/writing a bunch of new system tools, especially in C, especially with C that touches sockets, especially C that weaves around PID1. I'm ignorant of the binary logging situation (when is this a problem? what can corrupt it? how do you fix it?) as I haven't had time to plumb those depths yet.
I've probably read through enough systemd articles, blogs, and threads to argue both sides of the debate by myself, but those would just be arguments. systemd works today, and people find it useful enough to include in their programs, and every major distribution uses it without it being a major disaster.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to inform me that this is the worst state of affairs possible.
I doubt systemd will be the last init, so I'm not too worried about things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji
I respect systemd about as much as it respects /usr/local/bin.
In case you don't know. systemd defaults to using /usr/bin.
There's multiple unit files for that project and the documentation directed the user to copy the wrong one. A documentation error isn't systemd's fault.
My distribution uses systemd, so I guess I'm for it. The parts of it I've interacted with have worked well and in a coherent way. As I said in another thread, I've really only had some problems with my system taking longer than expected (15-30 seconds?) to shut down, but that hasn't happened lately.
I'm definitely skeptical of re/writing a bunch of new system tools, especially in C, especially with C that touches sockets, especially C that weaves around PID1. I'm ignorant of the binary logging situation (when is this a problem? what can corrupt it? how do you fix it?) as I haven't had time to plumb those depths yet.
I've probably read through enough systemd articles, blogs, and threads to argue both sides of the debate by myself, but those would just be arguments. systemd works today, and people find it useful enough to include in their programs, and every major distribution uses it without it being a major disaster.
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to inform me that this is the worst state of affairs possible.
I doubt systemd will be the last init, so I'm not too worried about things.
There's multiple unit files for that project and the documentation directed the user to copy the wrong one. A documentation error isn't systemd's fault.
I encountered already many issues with Systemd.
There is some serious problems with it. It does not shut down properly.
When harddisk is damaged, waiting for a simple fsck, you are completely locked with your pc using systemd. NO WAY, you need to get a live to fix your drive.
Seriously, there are really several issues, which are ... big. This is of course unknown, rejected by gnome, and underestimated.
You can get serious problems, if you have important data or system, using systemd.
Unfortunately. Installing libsystemd libs in my system and then rebooting. Finding half of of my applications using /usr/local/bin not working. Spending a a few days to investigate why my stuff is not working. Then, Reinstalling everything from a gzipped backup. Made before installing libsystemd dependencies for a application.
I consider that systemd fault for not playing nice with my install. It is either their way or no way. Just my take on it.
Also. My post you quoted. Was to show what systemd defaults to using. So to show I was not talking bull.
I found out these things on my own. No one warns one when dealing with things outside the box.
So it more of a citation than assigning blame or anything. I have my own personal reasons for not like liking how systemd does things.
How is that editing a binary code file working out for ya?
Can you be a more clear? ondoho? Am I the half truth poster?
Unfortunately. Installing libsystemd libs in my system and then rebooting. Finding half of of my applications using /usr/local/bin not working. Spending a a few days to investigate why my stuff is not working. Then, Reinstalling everything from a gzipped backup. Made before installing libsystemd dependencies for a application.
Despite my above reported issues, the /usr/local/bin on my debian+systemd (stable) of my Debian station are working, unaffected by Sytemd.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
