← Back to context

Comment by severino

7 years ago

Well, I don't know anybody in the FOSS community which would be worried it systemd became endangered ;)

53 comments

severino

Reply
pritambaral  7 years ago

1. Every distro that already uses systemd (which is close to 100%)

2. (Close to 100% of) packagers and maintainers of system services

3. System administrators using distros from #1 (which is, again, practically everyone)

  • severino  7 years ago

    Now talking seriously, even if IBM stopped funding the project, it wouldn't be such a disaster. First of all, it's open source. A new mantainer could take over the project (for free) so the distributions can keep using it. But even if a replacement had to be found, the process wouldn't be traumatic... just like when Debian, the base of many other distributions, adopted systemd some years ago.

    • geofft  7 years ago

      A new maintainer could take over the project, but Red Hat was funding their labor, and the chances that someone takes over the project and continues contributing regularly goes up significantly if their labor is reliably funded. (Working for a large company is not the only way to fund labor, but it seems to be the most common one in our society.)

      Similarly, having something worth switching to also depends on labor to develop such an alternative. Upstart is no longer funded, and was the closest (including in terms of mindshare that caused people to spend labor developing integration between their software and the init system).

      3 replies →

    • _emacsomancer_  7 years ago

      systemd is interesting and innovative. But I do question whether the most baroque of the modern inits should be the de facto standard init.

  • dijit  7 years ago

    The warnings for #1 were clear. Nobody wanted to hear or heed them. I have little sympathy for those that adopted it despite many people begging them (distro maintainers) not to.

    • geofft  7 years ago

      I do not think that there were any clear warnings that you should avoid using systemd because it's good software that might stop being developed soon.

      I also don't think avoiding using systemd solves the problem. My preferred alternative to an abandoned systemd is a well-developed systemd, not sysvinit.

      7 replies →

eliaspro  7 years ago

So you'd rather go back to Upstart or SysV? Really?

  • bigbugbag  7 years ago

    I would stay away from upstart because canonical. SysV, yes in the blink of an eye.

    But you are mistaken if you think systemd is about init, it has gobbled so much stuff that this thing is a monstrous kitchen sink on its way to engulfing the whole bathroom.

    then again maybe there are other init systems options than those two, devuan which arose from keeping systemd out of debian offert no less than 6 alternatives that address SysV flaws: openrc, sinit, runit, s6 and shepherd.

  • throwaway76543  7 years ago

    Yes, without question. Systemd provides me absolutely no benefit when running a server and adds considerable complexity and fragility in a critical component.

    A traditional SysV init is just fine. Want orchestrated service invocation on startup? Run it from SysV init instead of replacing SysV init.

    There is no need to conflate the "sysv rc system" with "sysv init." They are entirely separate things.

    • pcwalton  7 years ago

      So you're saying to just use SysV init to launch processes from inittab, and have one of those processes be a systemd/launchd clone that launches everything else. I mean, I guess that's a possible design, but at that point I would question whether using the SysV init program is really buying you anything.

      In any case, most people wouldn't consider that design "SysV init". The SysV init ecosystem is built around rc files.

      4 replies →

  • cthalupa  7 years ago

    I'd rathe someone take another shot at service management.

    I don't want to hold onto everything about SysV style systems - I love SMF in Solaris! - but I'd definitely prefer a leaner and more focused approach to development than we see with systemd.

  • dijit  7 years ago

    False dichotomy. There are more options than those. SystemD won because it had been adopted already and was supported by a major company in FOSS

    • bigbugbag  7 years ago

      I would disagree that systemd got adopted because it had been already adopted, this is a circular reasoning.

      From a distance it looks like politics and influence pushed for adoption of systemd, motivation behind this uncanny move and spread has been questioned making some wonder if this could be intended with a nefarious purpose in mind.

      3 replies →

    • sprash  7 years ago

      False dichotomy indeed. Right now I'm testing runit (on void linux) for my production machines. My experience since more than a year: Once it runs it runs, literally zero surprises so far.

      The general volatility of systemd introduces so many unstable elements in your system, that it really makes you think if the added risk it is really worth the value it offers (even though I'm still not quiet sure what the value of systemd actually is).

      3 replies →

  • OpenBSD-reich  7 years ago

    I switched to Gentoo because of systemd. I switched to OpenBSD because Linus was recently 'compromised' and adopted the CoC (worse: it's the highly political Creator's Covenant version). Theo's philosophy is shut up and hack, much like the early Linus with the bonus of being security instead of performance oriented.

    I'd love to see a Portage Prefix on OpenBSD, or Gentoo/kOpenBSD, effort start up again. Bringing Portage to OpenBSD (even if prefixed) would make a wonderful combination!

bdavis__  7 years ago

redhat had a lot of love in the world. any other vendor that shoved systemd down everyones throat would have been villified. redhat was given a pass. (karma, anyone?)