Should You Use SystemD?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 гру 2022
- Revisiting the argument over SystemD or not SystemD.
👇 PULL IT DOWN FOR THE GOOD STUFF 👇
Patreon - / thelinuxcast
Liberapay - liberapay.com/thelinuxcast/
UA-cam - ua-cam.com/channels/ylG.html...
===== Follow us 🐧🐧 ======
Discord - / discord
Odysee - odysee.com/$/invite/@thelinux...
Mastodon- fosstodon.org/@thelinuxcast
gitlab.com/thelinuxcast
Subscribe at thelinuxcast.org
Contact us email@thelinuxcast.org
Telegram Group - t.me/+9lYoIuLh0JIyMzcx
Amazon Wishlist - www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Merch Store - zaney.creator-spring.com/
Logo Courtesy of - pedropaulo.net
==== Special Thanks to Our Patrons! ====
thelinuxcast.org/patrons/
#systemd #linux #thelinuxcast - Наука та технологія
Want more Linux content? I toot about Linux and a bunch of other nerdy topics on Mastodon. Follow me! fosstodon.org/@thelinuxcast
Happy new year to you and yours Matt, thanks for the great video
Those 6 seconds gain during boot up may be because of the distro, not the init system. Fedora has more services (ie SELinux) than Void and will therefore take longer to boot.
I tested systemd vs openrc in Gentoo, so as to make an apples to apples comparison, and what I found was systemd was faster at boot by a whole half a second.
i think this is probably the case. when comparing minimal distros like void with minimal arch distros with systemd, i've noticed no difference large enough to matter in the least bit to me. i lean systemd these days because of the wide compatibility and it's generally fairly easy to remember the syntax. for instance, i can't use teamviewer on void, if i could, i would be running void now but have just settled with arch based.
comparing fresh-installs is kind of misleading. To me, a fresh install is always fast, (at one time this was even true for windows, lol not any more). What happens in my experience is that you use it, you update the packages, you install anything that runs as a service (like a database), you switch from ethernet to wifi, you set up an NFS mount...any non-standard configuration and thats where the dependency issues start creeping in. Systemd is an honest (and mostly effective) solution to the dependency hell that creeps in. Yeah some flimsy bash script **can** solve those but its not the right solution like using pliers instead of a wrench.
I think the main reason to not want to use systemd is more of a philosophical/personal preference issue rather than performance. It's like how people complain about Vivaldi having a ton of features that you don't necessarily need or want in a browser.
vivaldi would be a better standardized browser than surf. in other words, minimalism is great, but only if you know what you're doing, and most people don't. therefore systemd
There are no speed difference if you disable Network-Manager-wait-online service, because it blocks booting until you connect to wifi.
Thanks for the video Matt. Happy new years.
Same to you!
Happy New Year!!!!!!
🎉
I love runit and prefer it over anything else. If using runit is not an option I would treat any other init system as the same whether it is systemd or openrc or sysvinit. Seeking for alternatives is not always because of hate it could be of curiosity.
love your videos man, i'm glad that i found your channel
Your dot files are awesome ♥️
The issue for me on systemd was the choice was taken from me. Many Linux distributions moved to systemd and provided no option for alternative inits. Professionally, I am RHCE and have been subjected to systemd since its adoption by Red Hat. However, I use other Linux distributions with alternative init systems for all my non-work projects. Why? The problems that were to be solved by systemd, initially, are now solved by other init systems without the complexity introduced by systemd and systemd modules.
the argument that systemd does too much is actually born from a confusion due to the devs poor naming choice
systemd is suite of applications which also contains a program called systemd (hence the poor naming choice),
systemd (the program not the suite) does the initsystem things
systemd-networkd manages network interfaces
systemd-resolved manages name resolution
systemd-journald is the system journal, etc
each of them are different programs and have their job and do them, in my oppinion, well
Oh yeah absolutely. It wouldn't be the default choice for about 85% of distros if it wouldn't do its job. Only issue that people have with it is that it's maintained by RedHat and that things like journaling are not supposed to be handled by your init-system/init-suite.
@@FinkelfunkI think the point of this comment was to say that those other functions are not the init system.
It's like if Microsoft was named after it's own OS Windows AND people said that my OS shouldn't be modifying my PowerPoints. Office is not Windows just like Journald is not systemd.
Or at least that's what I got.
No matter if one likes systemd or not, it is a very good idea to learn how to use it and how it works. It is more or less the "default" pid1 for linux (DEBIAN, ubuntu, arch, fedora, suse
I am using OpenRC as my init system on Gentoo. As a Gentoo user I found that setting up my system with OpenRC to be easier than Systemd
since you're a gentoo user, the fact that you're choosing an init system based on it's ease of setup is hilarious to me.
@@accountid9681 how come? gentoo is also very easy to set up. you just do exactly as it's written on installation documentation and that's it.
it takes a lot of time, and i mean a lot, but taking long time to set up is not the same as difficult to set up.
i'm using OpenRC on Gentoo, too. i'm also using Systemd on Arch and Runit on Void. i like runit the most from those three.
@@accountid9681 Complexity and difficulty are not interchangeable. Gentoo is complex and can be difficult, but it's usually no more difficult than your average Arch install.
@@accountid9681 that's a really dumb argument
I don't use systemd simply because I admire the dedication of the people who make new distros just to not have systemd.
Been using Artix for months and everything works. For those packages who need systemd, just install elogind and it's fine.
and fakesystemctl also can tricks systemD
Working on IT made me love systemd. It is so easy to make everything up and running
@thelinuxcast. Excellent video Matt. I guess 6th times the charm... I recorded my vifm video several times too. I think that's why I forgot to go over bulk renaming. Lol
While I don't hate systemd or distros that use it, i am using Devuan with openrc because I tried it, liked it, and kept using it.
Happy new year to you and yours.
🎉
Devuan openrc user here too...
First off Matt, Happy New Year!
That statement about the 6 seconds made me think of this movie where a boy was following someone (I cant remember the movie) shouting " I want my 2 dollars!" He was always on a bicycle and at one point he did skis on it in the snow and going down this slop and off the side of a mountain... I digress, sorry!
If systemd is 6 seconds slower, I will never get that back and at 68 that could be important right?
BUT
If it takes me 3 weeks to learn another init system, then learn all the work around's to install my software to get it to work on the non-systemd system. How long will it take me on the new init system to get that 3 weeks plus back at 6 seconds at a time? 🤣
Me I'm happy with systemd as I never do much with it anyway and it works and that is a good thing. Hell there is more things on my computer that is more boated anyway and I think people just want to complain about crap to have something to do. IMOP 🤔
Happy New Year Matt!
LLAP 🖖
Great movie. "Better off Dead". with John Cusak.
@@itildude Awesome! Thanks you so much! I was still trying to think of the movie... Lol
I had the VHS but one of the kids snatched it years ago...
Happy 2023!
LLAP 🖖
Got to find that move now! 🤣
I originally installed openRC for the cooler looking alternative boot messages. I wish openRC was the standard init as it is just as easy.
Did you stop updating the podcast feed?
I think comparing the init systems from user's POV doesn't make sense. One should compare the init systems from the perspective of someone who is creating and supporting a Linux distribution. Will it be easier or harder if you picked systemd or runit? I would also like to see a good overview of s6-66 in comparison with systemd and runit.
Currently i use systemd on arch, openrc on gentoo and runit on void (i also used SysVinit back in the day and i was a slackware user long time ago, so i also used its weird ass hybrid init system, too). honestly i like runit the best from those three, but the gap is not that big, i also like systemd and openrc, and i'm happy with all of them.
You said that the init-system usually sets up everything it needs to set up, which is true for systemd in most instances. However, for other init systems like OpenRC you usually need to download a whole other application to be able to enable the service. And I've found that if you need to actually write a script for your init system then I'd prefer to write systemd scripts over OpenRC any day just because this is way easier imo. That being said, what you said is absolutely true: If you are not someone who has to actually deal with their init system it does not matter which one you use. It is there to function and do its job, as long as you don't notice it you know its doing its job.
You could use GNU GUIX linux distributors, which uses the SHEPHERD init system.
How do I get an already installed W10 on my brand new Endevour with systemd to show on the boot list?
first install os-prober : sudo pacman -S os-prober
then run this command in a terminal :
grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg
Matt, I find that RealVNC (free for 5 PC's) seems to require systemd to run, too. I'm running MX Linux in both 32- and 64-bit flavors. Having had a Spinal Cord Injury in 2018, I'm now left with limited mobility and need to be able to access the computers in other rooms in our house. I know there are other options for remote access - I'm open to suggestions here - but I find that many GUI Apps (Like the MX-SAMBA and Disk Manager tools) don't work with baseline RDP connections (because of permissions with pkexec... I think?). As such, it seems that, for me, systemd has to be my choice ... and given that MX-Linux is Debian-based anyway ... shouldn't it be the default? I'm no expert, guys. Educate me lol.
And Matt, Linux is not only awesome, I think it's the true "Green" OS - Keeps my older hardware out of landfills and being useful ... now what's not to like about that?
I always thought slower boot might have better performance while using.
But we don't know everything, like fx when browser have preloads for some things/websites (i don't know about) i will have better experience than waiting it to load from websites.
My (personal and limited) experience:
The good:
- it is easier to setup a service with systemd than with SV init, and more portable.
The bad:
- systemd defines its own language for service files. The documentation is available, but understanding the logic is not trivial. This is a recurring theme: systemd reinvents the wheel.
- Systemd's behavior on service failure is confusing: still need to stop a dead service? Might be something configurable, not sure: see item above.
- systemd-timesync is actually is a pain when you need more that it's very limited implementation of SNTP. If you need to serve clients on an isolated network (video cameras) or need time sync when there the Internet is down (using GPS), then you have to _fight_ it. This is because it is installed by default, and seems to be restarted in some occasions even when disabled..
I did not really notice systemd being significantly faster, even on boot. Switching to an SSD has had a more significant impact..
I do prefer runit: the start scripts are as simple and as portable as systemd (I tried Devuan and null linux). Some things are much easier than with systemd because runit uses regular shell scripts, while systemd requires learning about some obscure features instead of well known standard shell features.
Overall I use systemd on Debian because that is the (well tested) default. I installed two alternatives distributions that use runit, and adapting my software to runit was easy (except for the logging thing, which I did not find being well explained). The problem is that these alternatives don't support the mix of hardware that I use: ARM processor support is often missing or not fully supported.
User of nixos here:
I embrance the use of sysd
This isn't really something I've thought too much about, to be honest, as I've mostly been using SystemD based distros. I may eventually give Void a try though, as it sounds interesting... though not on my main machines!
Happy New Year, Matt. For the typical computer user on Linux, systemd is the obvious choice. Otherwise, it boils down to personal preference and your situation. If you need a system that simply works because of time constraints and work, then You will probably end up with systemd on Linux. Otherwise, use what works for you.
When I was a long time Arch user, i used void Linux for like 6 months. Runit gave me allot of respect and understanding of SystemD. I now run Gentoo with SystemD and i get hate for that - and idgaf about that.
Can you make startup script easily with systemd?
I have tried to follow some tutorials but did not succeed...
It's just a matter of what sources you did use as reference. Usually in order to make a startup script you need to create a new unit and attach it to some target (aka runlevel). Unit is created by creating a plaintext file in a proper location and running a single command. Really it's not that difficult or different from SystemV init scripts
@@alx8439 Are there any GUI applications that I can do this with?
I like systemd, because it is doing more stuff. The bloat is what I like about it. :D
Im not sure if im talking sh1t here. But i tried to install Pop!OS on my PC and dual boot with Windows10/11. And it didnt work. I googled for a while but couldn't fix it. Some people said it was because Pop!OS doesn't use systemd. Can it be true? just curious. Im using Fedora now.
I dual boot windows/pop and it works fine. Pop uses systems but it wouldn't matter if it didn't.
@@bengtl.5017 U had to do something or just installed everything and worked out of the box? I had Pop on 1 SSD and Windows on the m2. But i think the problem was the bootloader. It directly booted pop instead of let me choose between pop or windows. Had to enter Bios, select the windows disk and format to install fedora instead of pop (I was just tired of trying things).
Pop Os uses systemd. Almost all popular distros use systemd. What issue exactly did you face?
@@lkzMini Oh I see your issue. Pop os uses systemd-boot as their bootloader unlike it's upstream (the one pop was forked from) Ubuntu which uses GRUB. You've to manually add an entry for Windows in systemd-boot for you to have an option at the boot to choose pop os or windows.
You could also install something like rEFIND which I suppose do all the stuff automatically for you and present you with a screen to choose your OS at boot.
Since you already installed fedora I doubt if you'll be switching back. Anyways keep this in mind the next time you're trying pop.
And happy new year
@sntclaire. no i didnt install os-prober. Im un grub2 now. But ye, the other comment from "you dont know me" is the answer it seems. Gonna google it. Thanks a lot!
I feel like the biggest reason people to dislike systemd is Lennart Poettering. And they exaggerate because they don't feel heard. Systemd is not that bad, it has flaws, but they are not unfixable. It's a bit sad that software keeps getting slower while hardware gets faster, because it makes me know what actually would be possible. What I really dislike about systemd though is it's folder structure, I never know where to put my stuff. There are too many places to put units. Then of course the alienated binary logging system - journald, which doesn't let me use standard linux tools to process the logs. Another one is a different aspect of the bloat: it has stuff like timers, which are more annoying to configure than cron-jobs, but will still probably take over the market just because it's preinstalled. This applies for a lot of stuff in systemd, including journald, that should just be split up in separate products in my opinion, because it has a huge potential to kill competition just by being pre-installed.
Its not that one actively USES it. Its just a part of the system. Also, whenever I wonder If something is good, I think like this: I highly doubt that developers go like "How could we possibly piss off most of our clients, customers and users" 🤔😅
🤣
@ArniesTech for the most part I agree that developers don’t sit around…. But there is the occasional odd exception-Windows ME and Windows 8, anyone?
For better or worse, systemd is now the 'default' and an expected part of Linux. Developers of most applications such as webservers, databases, etc now only provide systemd service setups. If you do not use systemd, you will be out of the mainstream now and anything having to do with setting up a service or custom program install that has a daemon you will be totally on your own to support setting up the auto start/stop of the services.
I believe that distributions should require packages to support other init systems besides sustemd. Not because I don’t like systemd, in fact, I love systemd and I think it does it’s job very well. However, I don’t like the idea of programs coupling with systemd and choose to not support other init systems. What happens if 30 years later, systemd is not the greatest init system on Linux anymore? It would be a pain to migrate to another better init system. Just look at Xorg and Wayland, the same idea, it’s always hard to migrate.
What I got out of the video was: if you use SystemD, great. If you don't use System, great. Make of it what you will. I personally do not use systemd because I don't fool with the init system because I follow the rule of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." and I don't want to break things that much lol. Here's to your 2023 being more awesome, Matt!!
Let's be honest, we should all be using GNU Shephard. Obviously the best init system.
I really don't care about the init system so long as I can figure out what it is starting up in which circumstance (and get some readout on the state of those services). What I care about is the usurpation of other services, many of which I would not care about, and wouldn't run, and object to the resources consumed and potential security threat surface presented ... save that systemd requires them. Lately I object to it shutting down user systems that I may choose to run as daemons for protracted time while developing systems or just for convenience on a single user machine. If I build a "blah" system that I need to run as a daemon and start and close on whim be it once a month or fifty times a day depending on whether I'm actively developing something for or testing other programs that interact with it. That I need to take the extra step of telling systemd about it ... fundamentally giving systemd control over MY code meant to run in MY user system completely under MY control. That's simply wrong ... and a fundamental breakage of the very notion of computation and programming.
Nothing wrong with systemd but there are legitimately systems that need a more lightweight init system, for example, 32 bit computers or SBC’s, or even game consoles like the n64 which only has 8mb of RAM tops. I don’t use it on my athalon, but my Ryzen machine runs it. No reason not to on your main machine
Hi Matt. Love your posts. Help me to have "linux conscience & opinion".
the main issue on systemd is that it really just add one thing that is autorestart but it ties your start system with hundreds of things htat makes it put its greasy finger EVERYWHERE, timesync, resolving dns, soon ssh and i guess libreoffice systemd will come. You can say you can unplug those but as this is the complete default nothing work anymore if you change this part or the other. Also no cgroup and you cannot even start the system. For exemple bad resolvctl dns thing that cannot even tell you wich dns is responding to resolvctl.. very hard to debug anything in it. The networkctl when it fail to bring a network its complelty opaque you dont have a clue of WHY it fails. horrible debugging features. Gains are very slim to me, problems are big not counting security issue as more the bloat, more the chance to have critical security issues.
I have ton of software in Debian, start quickly but restart or shutdown takes time not much. But in that case it is worse then windows maybe because I don't use that much soft in Microsoft or Microsoft sucks for web developer.
You have a lot of people that feel systemd goes against the UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well."
Yes and those people misunderstand the real meaning behind that in the Unix philosophy, or simply take it too far to be more gentle about it. The next point is "Write programs to work together".
@@itildude True. While I like the idea of "Do one thing and do it well", it's impractical to expect everything to be like that.
Yes, there are many people, myself included. To counter itildude, the UNIX philosophy is indeed about programs working together. But not only among themselves. That is, all systemd programs only work between themselves, not with the rest of the ecosystem. By this thing alone, it violates the UNIX philosophy and it's the main reason to not use it. Because it's very hard to write replacements for specific components. It might work now, but on the very next update, it might break because they changed something in the way 2 of their programs work, and they don't care if anybody else uses alternatives for those.
And that is the main danger. If everybody gets very invested into a thing (systemd) that is very big and mostly controlled by a corporation, you'll get into a point where is also very hard to switch to something else. Time to switch to something else should also always be a red flag.
I don't dispute that systemd works, it's generally very useful. I'd say that the 6 seconds Matt said are also not because of systemd, because usually systemd is among the fastest ones (which was a massive point for switching to it when it was new, it was much faster that the other normal init system at that time). But I can argue the same for Windows and Mac OS. The idea is that while it's ok for now and it works, its design is not good and is a slippery slope to a very big problem or a very big headache later. And we know to do better.
@@Winnetou17 You make fair points and I am not going to argue them. I just don't feel a need to rigidly or religiously stick to the stated Unix philosophy when it makes sense not to. I also honestly don't think Systemd represents a great divergence from it tbh. My only (and much larger) gripe with Systemd is the decision to not use plain text logs. That's a head scratcher.
One last point on the Unix philosophy, by way of example, is Emacs. I'd say it's pretty much regarded as a quintessential Unix like piece of software and strays about as far as you can possibly get from the Unix philosophy. (And I love it).
I think at the root of the discussion about this is that the scope of doing "one thing" is not well defined and does have multiple, valid interpretations.
@@itildude Thank you for the reply!
Regarding doing one thing and doing it well - as long as you have a workflow, a program catering to all the needs of that workflow is ok. You could say that Emacs or modern browsers or Blender are violating the UNIX philosophy. They kind of are, BUT, they are also end-user facing. They are the kind of program that you build from the small "do-one-thing" programs, to achieve a complete work environment. Say, Emacs or any IDE like VS Code or IntelliJ can use behind the scenes find to get all .c and .h files, then grep for searching for includes in them and then build the whole AST or something like that. Programs like cat, ls, find, grep and so on are like tools, are like infrastructure. But an IDE, a browser or something like Blender is like a whole workspace building. Or like a big home.
Back to the systemd, its programs are mostly not end-user facing, but do get into the tool and/or infrastructure category.
Last thing on the topic, I'll give an example: search CVE-2018-16865 . It's a vulnerability that was found on journald several years ago, and was later fixed. The problem is that it's pretty high severity. And... you cannot simply disable or remove journald. You can use rsyslog alongside journald, but because they made it to be soo coupled, you cannot literally remove it and still have a working system. Imagine the stress levels for system administrators that found out that they have a big security risk that they cannot disable/remove/replace, they just have to wait for an update.
The good part is that as time goes, it is possible that systemd evolves into being properly modularized so disabling/replacing any of their programs can actually be done. And hopefully before a catastrophe happens.
Actually, systemd is NOT monolitich or bloated. You can build each component by itself. If you only need the init, you can build just that. Of course distros provide most of the time almost all the functionality when building their version.
I don't understand why do people care about the boot time. Like, ok, maybe care but why focus on it. Push the power button when you wake up go wash your face brush your teeth. Your pc will boot when you come back.I think you forgot to mention the resource usage. 🤷♂
I have installed antix on my notepad (Atom N550 cpu, 2Gb ddr3 ram) and the ram is kinda really precious. It uses 150-200MB !!! Like whaat. 200mb vs 2Gb for a systemd... But I believe you probably couldn't care less with 64Gb ram 🤭
I don't hate SystemD or people who use it. I think that's an extremely silly position. Obviously SystemD largely handles things very well, otherwise every major distribution on the planet wouldn't have started using it.
I'm only worried whenever some specific project ends up being relied upon by *nearly everybody* and feel like using alternatives gives them a little bit of a boost, which is important in a FOSS world where part of the point is the ability for everyone to move on to something else if there's a major problem.
To me, systemd's biggest problem is shitty ergonomics. like to isolate a runlevel that used to be as easy as "init 3" now requires some bullshit incantation. This is more than just "syntactic sugar", in my opinion: hypothetically, do you think that the number of Linux users who previously used "init 3; init 5" to rescue a stuck graphics frontend are going to simply migrate to "systemct isolate $CRYPTIC_INCANTATION" ? No, the added friction means that fewer people will use it. (not to mention it never works for me, but thats an aside).
Another place they dropped the ball is with D-Bus. Now maybe this isn't technically systemd, but the way D-Bus organizes its topics and messages is 1980's-level stupid. But now we're stuck with it and most linux users only know of it as "some stupid dependency that has to be updated so my stuff works", not "the thing that makes systemd less opaque so you can actually see what its doing".
I understand why people hate systemd, and I applaud the fact that in the FOSS community there are replacements. But I think its just the logical progression to move Linux into a modern direction. Just wish they would have solicited more user input about naming.
I like using systemd to make services for applications I write.
I love sysvinit and runit any day over systemd and believe me BOOT time is ALOT FASTER than in systemd.... i dont know how you not saw this...
Luke Smith made me start hating on SystemD, then I got into server management at work and realized the importance of systemD and concluded that that guy's influence is bad to some extent
SoyStemD
Next up: should you use Windows?
I used to immensely dislike systemd. However, after installing Arch I discovered that systemd is very modeler and a coherent collection of purpose built systems to address specific fundamental operating system needs, and not just for the init system. No longer dislike it and actually come to appreciate its logical consistency.
The problem with systemD IS that there are programs that expect it
Systemd is great, however you should know sum alternatives.
There's just one more argument against SystemD I can throw in - it's a bit more greedy when it comes to memory. This only becomes visible if you're trying to run Linux on some 10-15 years old computer with a limited amount of ram without an option to upgrade that. Alpine Linux with XFCE running takes like 150 Mb of ram, where the same XFCE running on any other distro which uses SystemD will easily eat 150-200 Mb more, just because of all these extra pieces of code like JournalD/Timers/whatever, which are integral parts of SystemD. But for the rest of more-or-less modern computers I'd say yes, you shouldn't care.
Comparing different distros doesn't make sense. They have different build options, different versions, different services running, and even different libc implementations in Alpine case. Too many variables outside of actual init systems comparison.
Nothing wrong with systemD, the problem is that too many distros depend on it which provides people with very little variety so you have a bunch of distros that really arent different from each other which leads us to the "Too Many Distros" issue.
systemd may be bloated, but i believe most of us don't use systemd completely, such as mounts, or other services. By creating systemd files, then one doesn't have to create a fstab file.
Personally I feel like people overblow it too much.
As someone on arch it just feels like extra hassle to switch when all of the arch wiki is written assuming you're on SystemD.
To me, an important property of a "component" is how easy it is to replace it with something else. Eventually, development of any component dries out (look at X), and we don't wont to get stuck with it. If systemD makes such replacing more difficult in practice, I cannot be a fan of it.
SoystemD
It's not only 10-12 seconds faster on boot times when we talk for runit. It's everything boots and loads faster. You have to know what init you are using. And it is important to know what's happening in your computer. There is fakesystemctl if you want to use apps depending on systemD. Also i see most people defend systemD barely know in depth other alternatives. I.E who else has tried runit with 66 suite ? systemD is also unsecure.... We should know sometimes it is buggy and something breaks or defuncts something in distros. It's code is so large so they can hide vulnerabilities inside. Is it a coincidence systemD creator works for Microsoft. It's not that simple: use what you want. I would say use whatever you want outside systemD.
When i use runit i feel secure because i know it won't be difficult to see what's going on in the background.
You can try runit + 66suite on void to fully benefit from runit and you will see it is better than systemD.
As for developers they can make posic software and i am sure it will work on most systems.
btw since you are trying Void:
install: vpm script to simplify things
sudo xbps-install -Su vpm
and vsv to see which services are up/down e.t.c
Booting the distro that I use is slower than I'd like, but it is faster than Windows, during whose boot I can brew and drink a pot of coffee. (That's a joke, sort of.)
I get the purity of one piece of software doing one thing, but for where I am in the ecosystem of computers, working is what matters to me, and the less effort I have to put into achieving that, the more I can get done of the things I need to do.
The concept behind Unix/Linux is the KISS concept, Keep It Simple Stupid! SystemD goes against that concept. And I used the System V init system for years without issues, having simple text logs were a blessing many times (retired Unix/Linux System Admin) and being able to disable some of the inits during the boot up, saved my ass any number of times. With SystemD you don't have the same simple text logs or the ability to disable some things during the boot sequence.That said SystemD has become mature enough so it's not an issue it might once have been.
If you're going to be that strict about the Unix philosophy, then Linux itself goes against it. Specifically the kernel I'm talking about.
@@TheLinuxCast Yes you are right and lots of people point that out about the monolithic kernel of Linux. Putting that aside, this is more about being able to trouble shoot DURING the boot sequence, what is going wrong. With the older System V init system you could step through each init to see where it failed, not something you can do with SystemD. And yes when you are maintaining both development, test and production servers for an enterprise, this is very useful! This actually saved the job of at least one developer that was so sure of his code he deployed to a production server where on the next reboot, booting failed! I was able to step through and find what subsystem was "unhappy" with his change, stop that from being started, rolled back his mods and got the server back up and running in less that 2 hours. If it was SystemD it is likely to have taken longer or required a rebuild of the server and backup restore. Oh and as it was a public facing server (behind a reverse proxy) yeah that would have cost the business $$$ and the developer his job and possibly his ability to get another job, things like that follow you around.
@@robbylock1741 well tbh deploying to production without testing is suicidal... I get what you mean though.
@@XenHat Yes exactly! We also removed his access to all production servers at that time as well. Not a great move by what WAS the senior developer. But if not for being able to step through the init sequence during boot, it would not have been pretty.
@@robbylock1741 that's true. It would be good if SystemD had the ability to do that, even if it had to be a slower, even boot-time flag-only mode that let sysadmins debug the boot process in cases like this. And being systemd, that feature could be compiled out on non-mission-critical systems if they really don't want it. But having the option hurts nobody.
The people who care about systemd are the same people who complain about bloat, and complain about stuff like sudo vs. doas or other stupid things. Those people should probably use one of the bsd variants or something.
You start out the video being dismissive, patronizing and actually insulting. You might consider that a great many of those who run systemd-free Linux (and all of the Unix and *BSD, not a single one of which will ever ) are far more experienced than you are. It might be worth talking to them about why they make a choice. Boot up time is rarely the key reason. You may also wish to consider that the large *nix package universe out there might look different, and more systemd centric, if there weren't non-systemd Linux out there and that could have a chilling effect on support for Unix and BSD.
I went back and watched it and I don't think I was any of those things that you claim. If I came across that way, it probably says more about you than about me.
Yeah let's speed up our startup by 6 seconds without systemd then screw around for an hour fixing something that broke.
Any distro that isn't a fringe project is using Systemd, so the question is settled. At this point, complaining about systemd makes you sound like Stallman crying about Guh-Noo Plus Lin-UKS.
"They are not always the most rational of people" LOL understatement.
They are for the most part crazy. There is no technical standard they can apply. The "Unix philosophy" dates back to 1978 and is outdated. They hold out "cat" as an example of a proper program. This philosophy predates graphical programs and simply does not apply to modern computing.
There is an extensive list of modern apps that break this philosophy. Firefox (or most any graphical web browser) to start. Vim, Emacs, etc.
Speed is a joke. There is too much subjectivity and too many variables on what booting does / what services are started. Systemd was designed so init processes could run in parallel and in turn that should be faster. If you use ststemv and start the same processes in tandem it will be slower.
From there, they descend into anti corporation and other paranoid rants. They ignore any technical board that they disagree with, for example the Debian technical board. Debian is an independent project and after reviewing all reasonable options went with systemd.
1. The Lunux kernel is the appitomy of bloat.
2. Each program does 1 thing. Taking that logic the init system should do what exactly? Boot into the kernel and nothing else?
So each service should have its own init program? One program for apache, another for network, another for database, another for network shares, and one to start the graphical system, another for user log in etc?
What is a "one thing"? There is no "one thing" an init system does. There are very few programs that do one thing. This is not a standard you can apply in any meaningful sense.
I have a few issues with what you said.
1. UNIX philosophy is not outdated, just as separation of concern in programming is not oudated.
2. "it predates graphical programs and simply does not apply to modern computing" except that servers exist which also have no graphical programs and that those in general have nothing to do with the problem at hand. Also, for your culture, OBS uses ffmpeg, a cli program
3. You didn't fully understood what UNIX philosophy means. It's not do "one thing" and "do it good" just for the sake of it. It's for easy composition and replacement. That is, a bigger program should be able to use these small programs, that are not bloated (and won't bloat our new, big program) and quite optimized (because it's easier when you have a small thing to do). Also, shell scripts/flows can be made easily by just composing small programs, each working on the same data or with the data outputted by the previous program. The interoperability is key. As such, it's better to have 3 programs, than 1 with 500 options to cover all cases.
4. Firefox is a browser. It has a workflow and includes everything needed for that workflow. That's ok. Using Firefox doesn't force you to use anything else, you can always remove it, install and use chromium and brave and such.
5. Linux is "the appitomy of bloat" - that's epitome, not appitomy. And in a way it is. But... it's not, because it's modular. You can disable any module. You can use one instead of another (like nouveau instead of the proprietary NVidia drivers). So, as much as it can, it's still compartimented into little units that only do one thing
6. Which brings us to the main problem with systemd. Many say that it does follow the UNIX philosophy because it has 60 or 70 programs, it's not one big executable. The problem is that they are not interoperable with the rest of the system. That is, I give you this challenge: run systemd without journald. As it is now, you cannot. You can run things along journald, but you cannot remove it. This is just one big example of how tightly coupled the systemd programs are within themselves. You cannot disable some parts. Some are difficult to have alternatives, not to mention the high risk that those alternatives break on any upgrade. It has 60+ programs, but they all are designed as one big unit, with no regards with interaction with the rest of the ecosystem.
Getting back to journald and the ability to remove it (and use something else instead, not simply along). Search for the vulnerability CVE-2018-16865. Now imagine how "at ease" a system administrator can be knowing that the vulnerable program it has in a system that normally should be very easy to be disabled or replace, well, it cannot be disabled or replaced and has a high risk vulnerability ? Doesn't that scream good design ?
As I said in another comment, I don't dispute that systemd works. It does, it is fast (I don't think the 6 seconds that Matt said are because of systemd, it usually is among the fastest init systems) and has many features. But I can argue the same for Windows and MacOS. The problem with systemd is its exclusive nature. You cannot simply take 1 part from it, you have to take it fully. It's a slippery slope to a very big problem or a very big headache down the road. And we know to do better.
@Winnetou17 one more try. All init are tightly coupled to the os one dose not simply 'sudo apt imstall {openrc,upstart,sysinit,systemd}'
Likewise they are not modular and you can not pick and choose. You can not run journald or homed on sysinit,opemrc,upstart ...
I dislike systemd because of how its forced on everyone (across all distros) and Pottering is one of the rudest people in the world, he also angrily attacks ANY distro that refuses to use systemd ,,, that gives me enough of a reason not to use it. runit is extremely good
two points 1)There is a major distro that does not sysD and seems to have a large user base (ubuntewww) 2) give me init feedom or give me death.... I'm on Devuan sysvinit #btw
devuan is really sexy
no