openSUSE following Fedora on systemd and FSH

jk07 · 08-28-2012, 09:26 AM

I was extremely dismayed to see that openSUSE is going to adopt the changes in the Unix file system hierarchy in 12.2 like Fedora:

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:UsrMerge

Why is openSUSE so closely following Fedora's lead in adopting systemd and the change in the Unix file system hierarchy? Why this sudden need to deviate from the Unix standard that has been the backbone of Linux for years.

I just don't understand the need to change what has worked for years without a good reason to do so. This will cause me to not even test much less use openSUSE 12.2.

theNbomr · 08-29-2012, 08:18 AM

You pretty much answered your own question. If you'd followed the link to The Case for the /usr Merge, you would have seen the rationale for the change. I see it as some short-term pain for long term gain.

--- rod.

jk07 · 08-29-2012, 02:14 PM

I've read the link you posted, and I still see no compelling need for such a radical change in the Unix file system hierachy. That page cites, among other reasons, improved compatablity because Solaris has done the merge. Since when does Solaris decide the FSH for everyone else? And if Fedora wants to follow Solaris then that is up to Fedora, but my original question was why does openSUSE have to be second to jump on this bandwagon? I could understand it if the majority of the Linuxes and Unices made this merge then of course, it would be silly not to do it, but it is equally foolhardy to be at the front of the line.

I see this as a solution in search of a problem.

The reason that I am asking this question is because openSUSE used to be my favorite distro. I was eagerly awaiting the release of 12.2 until I found this out. I am unable to put aside my fundamental philosophical differences with openSUSE on this issue and systemd.

jk07 · 08-29-2012, 02:24 PM

Ok. This is just too much. From this http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ is the following paragraph on systemd:

Quote:

Yes, it is written systemd, not system D or System D, or even SystemD. And it isn't system d either. Why? Because it's a system daemon, and under Unix/Linux those are in lower case, and get suffixed with a lower case d. And since systemd manages the system, it's called systemd. It's that simple. But then again, if all that appears too simple to you, call it (but never spell it!) System Five Hundred since D is the roman numeral for 500 (this also clarifies the relation to System V, right?). The only situation where we find it OK to use an uppercase letter in the name (but don't like it either) is if you start a sentence with systemd. On high holidays you may also spell it sÿstëmd. But then again, Système D is not an acceptable spelling and something completely different (though kinda fitting).

How petty can you get?

fogpipe · 08-29-2012, 03:06 PM

Both changes it seems to me will result in an os that is more prone to error on boot and harder to fix. It looks to me like the file system change is about redhat getting more control. I guess if you cant make a positive mark you can always be remembered for peeing on someone elses good work.

Landis · 09-05-2012, 01:45 PM

systemd is actually a pretty good thing from my experience. Starting processes in parallel at boot leads to shorter boot times, and the tools for diagnosing problems are great. Add to that the fact that it's easier to get junior techs to remember 'service foo restart' than it is '/etc/init.d/foo restart' and it's pretty much a no-brainer.