The mass exodus if Slackware uses Systemd

k3lt01 · 10-29-2014, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

So technically you've moved on, then, and to a systemd distribution no less.

I never moved on to Debian, I was using Debian before Slackware and removed Slackware for LFS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

So if Slackware isn't your "end-all" how can you bring an argument about what we who still use Slackware with any level of relevancy? You've made your decision.

The exact same way you can make your argument about Debian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

I too use LFS, but Slackware still exists on my box as the host when I build things in chroot. Just because it's unlisted doesn't mean squat. Maybe I just don't feel like adding it to the list.

Just because I don;t currently use it doesn't mean squat either. I just don't see how you have a right to suggest I can't discuss something about Slackware when I have used it and not all that long ago, yet you believe can discuss systemd in Debian. Isn't systemd a Linux issue not just a Slackware or Debian issue? Aren't we Linux users? or are you being an elitist, again, and suggesting that because you are a Slackware user (occassionally) you can tell other distro users how to think but other distro users are not allowed to think about commenting anywhere near a Slackware forum? Unlike you I'm not here to influence Slackware users but you most certainly try to influence users of other distros.

TobiSGD · 10-29-2014, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

By striking out core UNIX fundamentals such as learning scripting,

Tell me again how systemd prevents anyone from learning how to script, please.

Quote:

basic plaintext file configuration reading,

systemd uses a mix of plain text files and symlinks for configuration. It also changes nothing about the plain text configuration files of services, like OpenSSH, SQL server of your choice, Apache, ... .
Of course you know that already, since according to your own words you have tested systemd for an extended period of time and it also has been pointed out more than once in many of the systemd threads you participated in. That makes me wonder why you bring that up here.

Anyways, since the (alleged lack of) UNIX philosophy in systemd seems to be such a major point for many people, I wonder what those peoples opinion are on, for example, un-UNIXy things like btrfs or ZFS, which are far from doing only one thing and doing it well.

Not long ago I came across a post on Phoronix which brings up the problem with those using the UNIX philosophy as arguments for anything: it is not well defined what "doing one thing" actually means.
I will quote that post here:
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showt...809#post447809

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceage

The ironic part of this conflict is that those gentlemen who like to present themselves as legitimate followers of the `School of True Unix Paradigms & Ideas' are in fact actively contributing to bringing discredit to functioning, still up-to-date Unix design practices. Their heads are brimming with catchy one-liners about system design and that's pretty much the only excuse they need to stop using said body part. As soon as they get in danger of leaving their superficial manner of thinking about software, they resort to parroting some other gentleman, who, once upon a time on IRC or Usenet, inaugurated them into the ways of good software design by reciting the holy words:

``Programs should do one thing well. Now be on your way, Son. Spread the word, so that humankind may henceforth live in harmony with one another.''

It has to be one of the most abused phrases in the history of computing. If I were the sentimental type, I'd have developed an aversion against it by now, despite the fact that I consider it to be useful, simply because some people will never grow tired of rattling it out again and again and again, without even making the slightest effort to fill it with meaning.

I'm claiming that anybody can make each and every single software system in existence simultaneously comply with and violate that requirement in the blink of an eye without even touching a single line of code. Provided they first pull their heads out of whichever opinion leader's rear end it might be sticking in. Apart from that, nothing more than a mere mental hack is needed. After all, Unix is, according to its designers, one big development environment and hacking is what Unix people do, right? Right. The hack works like this:

Step 1: Come up with a definition of ``one thing''.

... and that's it. Now, I've applied this hack to my systemd's /sbin/init just recently and guess what: it worked! All of a sudden systemd's /sbin/init managed the run time state of my system. There you have it. It's doing only one thing and it's doing it pretty damn well, I consider. Halle-friggin-lujah! This hack even works when applied to the whole Microsoft Windows operating system. It's only a matter of definition. Damn. Now, don't y'all dare get ideas and cheat on poor Misses Linux now, fellas!

Wait a second. Let's not be quite so hasty. Let's rather take a moment and remind ourselves of what the actual definition of a computer program is: ``A program is a sequence of individual steps.'' Wait, what? A sequence? As in ``More than one thing''? There's an oddity. Is that supposed to mean, by any chance, that the phrase ``Programs should do one thing well'' is, strictly speaking, a contradiction in terms? Bingo! A contradiction is exactly what this is. So, how could the original Unix designers, smart as they are, not have realized that? Well, I believe they did. Indeed, it should be pretty safe to assume those guys knew exactly that a simplifying catch phrase summarizing a whole OS design for the purpose of communication is not meant to be taken quite so literally. Maybe the intent was to convey a certain approach to tackling problems. Yes, now that I've come to think about it, I'm quite certain that I once read something along those lines in a book called `The Unix Programming Environment' by Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike. Maybe, and I might be taking a leap here, *maybe* the real difficulty is not in writing programs that do one thing. Maybe it's in coming up with a definition of what the heck ``one thing'' is supposed to mean in practical terms: what is a logical, manageable unit of functionality that has to be implemented to solve a given problem? Is my description of the problem even meaningful? *Maybe* the answers to those questions vary depending on the context I work in, and maybe the context itself keeps changing slowly but steadily since even before the 1970s.

Yes, Unix philosophy can be helpful in guiding a designer onto the right path when devising a new system. What systemd opponents fail to acknowledge is that those guidelines don't compensate for a lack of careful interpretation, adaptation and good thinking in general. However, those gentlemen are most likely not interested in solving problems in the first place. Their biggest worry, it seems, is their emotional attachment to their habits. Habits which necessitate maintaining a simplistic view of computing out of pure self-interest. If at least they were sincere enough to admit that.

55020 · 10-29-2014, 05:42 AM

Hypothesis: the frequency of the word 'you' in a post is inversely correlated with constructive discussion. Evidence will be supplied below.

rkelsen · 10-29-2014, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttk

First, there's a slow-motion backlash reaction to systemd happening right now. It remains to be seen how it plays out, and could go any of a number of ways. See, for example, debianfork.

Wow. That was interesting to read. Thanks for posting it.

fgcl2k · 10-29-2014, 06:02 AM

I will continue to use Slackware even if systemd or other pieces of software are adopted, because I think that Slackware is more about building a sound and well thought system with the available components than about using an init system. I trust that the Slackware implementation of systemd will be the one that causes the least damage.
Over the years I have seen many things change in the Linux world; I remember when Linux experts laughed at Windows because it had graphic drivers in the kernel: how superior was X11 with its client/server design. Now Linux has graphics drivers in the kernel and users complain if they don't get the same performance as in Windows. X11 will probably be replaced, too: what happened to that clean design? Now init is becoming like svchost under Windows... seems like Windows made all the right choices years ahead of Linux :-)
Just kidding: I'll stick with Slackware.

brianL · 10-29-2014, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgcl2k

I will continue to use Slackware even if systemd or other pieces of software are adopted

Yeah, me too, I've decided. I'm sticking with Slackware whatever happens. If it ever ceases to exist, then I'll consider other options.

jens · 10-29-2014, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen

Wow. That was interesting to read. Thanks for posting it.

It's no more than a silly troll-site.
Debian doesn't even require you to use systemd.
It's only using it as a default (partly to allow some packages that do rely on it, though that's technically still a "bug").
I find it funny how people like ReaperX7 are even trying to convince people to use Gentoo instead, while it's offering the exact same approach.

Also see: http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/...g-systemd.html

cynwulf · 10-29-2014, 06:39 AM

@Tobi: That quote is not so great, I see the point you're trying to make, but quoting silly troll posts from phoronix attacking UNIX philosophy at it's roots just to prove a point - dare I say, to try and justify your own move to systemd - is much the same as the kind of posts Reaper is alleged to have made.

UNIX philosophy still stands - it's not perfect, but it's a set of rough guidelines to follow. Thompson and Richie defined it and it's safe to say that they probably knew what they were talking about. One of the fundamentals which your poster trashes is that "power of a system comes more from the relationships among programs than from the programs themselves. Many UNIX programs do quite trivial things in isolation, but, combined with other programs, become general and useful tools" (from the UNIX Programming Environment".). This is referred to again in another paper by Kernighan and Pike: "a style of program design that makes programs easy to use and, more important, easy to combine with other programs".

Again - to make my position clear - I don't think systemd project have to stick to the above, they can do what they like, but they should also expect criticism and for people that don't like it to avoid it. The goals of systemd, as clearly set out by the project now via mailing lists, blogs, articles, speeches and whatever other medium, are at odds with this and it's clear that. To look for excuses to prove that systemd is not being pushed and forced in wherever possible is to be exceptionally naive and ignore the principal developer's own posts and overbearing arrogance.

Instead of posting hysterical rhetoric, rubbishing it and pulling it apart and looking for examples where it's not observed, your quoted poster should try to explain in detail why this approach is wrong or bad practice and what harm it has actually done for the last 30 odd years (in bringing about the *nix operating systems we use today). systemd needs to prove itself, not the UNIX philosophy.

A good example of the above is something like grep or cat, which perform a role and can be adapted to other roles used in scripts be combined with other commands to do something useful. Those are just two examples.

It's interesting to note in fact that Patrick Volkerding designed Slackware package management using this very approach (he is free to correct me if I'm wrong). Rather than building new binaries from scratch and reimplementing existing software all over again, he wrote scripts which simply made use of existing tools and can be modified and adapted by the user. UNIX philosophy in practice.

chemfire · 10-29-2014, 08:05 AM

I am only commenting because this thing has hit 5 pages now. Come on really there isn't going to be any exodus, over systemD if it even happens. Many of us have been using Slackware for 15 years. We are not going anywhere just because of a change like that, to do so would be giving up everything that is great about Slackware, which does not all dissapear just because systemD shows up even if I/we don't like it.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water springs to mind.

BSD is nice, but hardware and software limitations are just to much for most of us; at least to use exclusively. Slackware is already far enough out of the main stream that getting certain things done/working frequently requires real effort where it would be a simple package install on some other OS; but you can always get there. Slackware has so many wonderful things going for it (as we all know) that its worth the occasional headache (saves on so much other day to day frustrations).

Patrick is the BFDL and we should trust him; his record might not be perfect but its far better than most. If there are alternatives to systemD likely to be both available and suitable on a useful time horizon I am sure he find them. If not I know he is not going to the one thing that really would cause folks to leave SL and that would shipping a obsolete or broken distro. If the choice is drop things people use like KDE or systemD, he will pick systemD. I can't really speak for him of course but I am fairly certain of that.

Sometimes you just can't hold back the tide, systemD may prove inevitable or it may not. If you don't wan't systemD look for alternatives, test stuff out post your experiences, but don't go spreading a bunch of FUD about how people will abandon Slackware. They won't if for no other reason than for folks who really know and like Slackware there are few places to reasonably go and no places where systemD would be unlikely to follow.

TobiSGD · 10-29-2014, 08:10 AM

@cynwulf: I can assure you that I don't need this quote to justify my switch to systemd, that move was entirely caused by my research of that software and evaluating if and how it fits my needs, exactly how I have done with other tools.

The point remains that the UNIX philosophy is, while a valid philosophy, is only a raw recommendation and by far not the only valid one. For example, while Slackware's package management tools are indeed a representation of those principles, there would have been no problem at all if Mr. Volkerding would have written it in Python or C.

Also, I wanted to point out that often times UNIX philosophy proponents are cherry picking the projects they want to test against said philosophy, which is why I also mentioned projects like ZFS and btrfs and asked about oppinions about that.

kikinovak · 10-29-2014, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

I never said anything about who was allowed to be what so please try to twist the argument again, please. The only pushing for systemd have been the obvious fanbois who jump when anyone even mentions systemd and then start in on anyone trying to say, "stop, let's think about this" and how many people actually dare push back? One person? Maybe a handful at best? Well pardon me if I actually give a shit about doing things the right way, and not the haphazard and fix it later way. I'm not the people who brings up every talking point Lennart claims is his own version of truth as undeniable fact when none of what he says has ever been proven fact? I'm one of few people vocally saying, "wait a minute, let's re-read that a bit more carefully before we continue".

Is it wrong for me to have an opinion on something? Is it wrong to you and others when I'm flexible on a few points, but yet you dare to say to me, "be more flexible Reaper! You don't have to be so inflexible!" Make up your mind. You think I don't like progress, but damn! Is it wrong to take progress slowly, carefully, methodically, and sanely? Apparently so with some of the crowd here.

The only thing i've pointed out is that after nearly 20+ years people are so willing to not just break a working model, but grind to a halt and destroy years of knowledge, education, and wisdom all in the name of progress, and where any one of us could be headed. All I pointed out was if the unthinkable occured, I could safely transition to another system by using the universal knowledge I acquired from Slackware that is not found in other distributions, or is rapidly disappearing altogether, and that throwing that knowledge away for a system that is anti-cross-platform in education and knowledge is completely foolish. Knowledge and education like that provided by Slackware, even if it wasn't Patrick's original intention, should be preserved by all means, even with a working design model.

I'm getting back on the topic my next post, so please, if you feel I'm any level of "wrong" in your eyes, discuss it with me in private, or hold your peace by all means please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeHSqZ9B1qQ

cynwulf · 10-29-2014, 08:54 AM

It's not a case of needing, it's what you're using to justify your position. If you like systemd, then by all means go ahead. As far as I'm concerned, I do question someone who previously said he was avoiding it and had gotten rid of his Debian systems to do so and then moved to gentoo and has now switched to it and is defending it. I don't have any problem with you changing distros, as I'm not a distro fanboi - that's entirely up to you, but quick shifts of opinion from avoiding something to being an active proponent, makes me doubt that person's opinions - however forcefully and thoroughly expressed. In a few months you could be "playing for a different team".

UNIX philosophy is no less valid because some people misquote/misapply it. That's much like the old "you use distro X and therefore are an idiot". There are people coming out with "sound bytes" and there are some admittedly stupid sites and stupid ideas out there ("forking" Debian for one), but the systemd PR machine is certainly no more mature. As you "gentoo folks" really should know by now.

Richard Cranium · 10-29-2014, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3lt01

Do you see Slackware in the list of everyone who is taking part in this topic? No, I didn't think so.

I haven't gotten to them yet.

Richard Cranium · 10-29-2014, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3lt01

I used it for a while alongside Debian, but now run Debian and LFS (LFS replaced the Slackware partition). Slackware is good but it's not the be all and end all for me.

Why do non-Slackware users post in Slackware forums? Nothing better to do?

GazL · 10-29-2014, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD

Also, I wanted to point out that often times UNIX philosophy proponents are cherry picking the projects they want to test against said philosophy, which is why I also mentioned projects like ZFS and btrfs and asked about oppinions about that.

I honestly don't see what ZFS, btrfs or any other filesystem has to do with "The UNIX philosophy". I sometimes think that many of those using the phrase are talking about something completely different to my understanding of it.

This is the UNIX philosophy in action:

Code:

cd /srv/local/music && ogg123 -d alsa -o dev:default -q -@ <( ls -d */* | shuf)

Do you think that the guys who wrote 'ls' and 'shuf' ever expected them to be used to provide a mechanism for someone to play every album they own in a random order, while keeping the tracks in sequence? The ogg123 developers didn't provide that functionality either. And yet, thanks to that philosophy, the shell which binds it all together, and a little creativity, I'm able to do so just by stringing a couple of small utility invocations together and I have no need to create a program to specifically do this job.

The thing about traditional init systems and init-scripts is that they use the exact same shell to start the system that the users interact with. The result is that the same flexibility that the end user has is also available to the system administrator who can use it to do all sorts of things that the developers never even imagined he'd do, and he only needs to know the exact same shell language that an end user will use to achieve it all.

systemd will probably work well for the modern pointy-clicky desktop world, whose consumers are blissfully unaware of what they're missing and quite happy to only use what they're given, and I'm not saying that service supervision and some of the other features systemd has aren't useful, but IMO systemd throws the baby out with the bath water and you'll never convince me it's a better system-glue than the shell and the increasingly maligned (by systemd proponents) "UNIX Philosophy".