18 Sep
2014
18 Sep
'14
3:17 p.m.
Since this list seems prepared to stick to logic, facts and solutions, rather
than heat and emotion, perhaps some kind soul would answer a question for me.
I have no opinion on init systems. I accept what I am given and am grateful,
but ....
If sysvinit is as staggerigly marvellous as it is being painted by some, and
if it was such a near thing that it got dropped as the Debian default init
system, how come the vote was apparently between Upstart and systemd? And
given that it was a vote between Upstart and systemd, why are some people so
up in arms and ranting that sysvinit was dropped by a meaningless margin?
(The chairman's casting vote.) When and how was the decison to drop sysvinit
as the Debian default init system actually taken?
Lisi
18 Sep
18 Sep
3:49 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
From: lisi.reisz(a)gmail.com
To: trinity-users(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:17:02 +0100
Subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
Since this list seems prepared to stick to logic, facts and solutions, rather
than heat and emotion, perhaps some kind soul would answer a question for me.
I have no opinion on init systems. I accept what I am given and am grateful,
but ....
If sysvinit is as staggerigly marvellous as it is being painted by some, and
if it was such a near thing that it got dropped as the Debian default init
system, how come the vote was apparently between Upstart and systemd? And
given that it was a vote between Upstart and systemd, why are some people so
up in arms and ranting that sysvinit was dropped by a meaningless margin?
(The chairman's casting vote.) When and how was the decison to drop sysvinit
as the Debian default init system actually taken?
Lisi
Hi Lisi,
As a linux user, I'd say that the init system, as long as it works as it should and
it gets you to your TDE desktop, is not a big matter to the end-user.
Some years ago, changes has been made to accelerate linux boot time. As I understand it,
previously, linux booted up in a very linear dos-like manner, which is one thing after the
other. Changes has been made to launch different services and parts of the system in a
more parallel way, to save some time.
Due to these changes, classic init system were changed for different one.
We don't always remember it, but, as an example, PCLinuxOS 2009 (and older releases
too) took much longer to boot than the ''current'' 2010 and newer
releases, due to changes in the organisation of the system bootup. Also, do you remember
how linux was almost as long to boot than to shut down?
In the end, it doesn't have much negative impact on the end users.
-Alexandre
4:04 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:49:11AM -0400, Alexandre wrote:
As a linux user, I'd say that the init system, as
long as it works as
it should and it gets you to your TDE desktop, is not a big matter to
the end-user.
There's the rub -- does systemd work *as it should*? I don't think so.
I'm not an expert, but the systems administrators I work with have
nothing but scorn for systemd. They're not all old Linux grey-beards
either, in fact the ones who hate systemd the most are the young guys.
Also, do you remember how linux was almost as long to
boot
than to shut down?
*shrug* I don't care too much. It would be nice if my Raspberry Pi would
boot up a bit quicker, but my other Linux systems -- a server and two
desktops -- are on virtually 24/7 for months at a time. I don't care if
they take a couple of minutes to boot up, because I only do so maybe
once every six months. (And if I had a UPS at home, it would be less
than that.)
As an end-user, what really concerns me about systemd that it apparently
turns it into Windows: every software update requires a reboot. If true,
that is, frankly, disgraceful and inexcusable. Windows has 10 or 15
years of history locking them into that behaviour. What's systemd's
excuse?
--
Steven
4:22 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thursday 18 September 2014 17:04:26 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
There's the rub -- does systemd work *as it
should*? I don't think so.
I'm not an expert, but the systems administrators I work with have
nothing but scorn for systemd. They're not all old Linux grey-beards
either, in fact the ones who hate systemd the most are the young guys.
So sysadmins don't like systemd. But can you not answer my questions?
Lisi
4:28 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 05:22:22PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Thursday 18 September 2014 17:04:26 Steven
D'Aprano wrote:
Sorry, I don't know.
I'm on leave from work, otherwise I would ask the guys I work with if
they know, or have an opinion. (I'm sure they'll have opinions, they are
very opinionated. But whether they are *valid* opinions is another
story.)
--
Steven
There's the rub -- does systemd work *as it
should*? I don't think so.
I'm not an expert, but the systems administrators I work with have
nothing but scorn for systemd. They're not all old Linux grey-beards
either, in fact the ones who hate systemd the most are the young guys.
So sysadmins don't like systemd. But can you not answer my questions?
4:58 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thursday 18 September 2014 17:28:05 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 05:22:22PM +0100, Lisi Reisz
wrote:
Thanks for replying. I think most people don't know - I don't. But I would
like to understand what's going on a bit better under/in all the heat.
Lisi
On Thursday 18 September 2014 17:04:26 Steven
D'Aprano wrote:
Sorry, I don't know.
I'm on leave from work, otherwise I would ask the guys I work with if
they know, or have an opinion. (I'm sure they'll have opinions, they are
very opinionated. But whether they are *valid* opinions is another
story.) There's the rub -- does systemd work *as it
should*? I don't think so.
I'm not an expert, but the systems administrators I work with have
nothing but scorn for systemd. They're not all old Linux grey-beards
either, in fact the ones who hate systemd the most are the young guys.
So sysadmins don't like systemd. But can you not answer my questions? 
4:21 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thu September 18 2014 08:17:02 Lisi Reisz wrote:
If sysvinit is as staggerigly marvellous as it is
being painted by some,
and if it was such a near thing that it got dropped as the Debian default
init system, how come the vote was apparently between Upstart and systemd?
And given that it was a vote between Upstart and systemd, why are some
people so up in arms and ranting that sysvinit was dropped by a meaningless
margin? (The chairman's casting vote.) When and how was the decison to
drop sysvinit as the Debian default init system actually taken?
I believe I read every word of the Debian TC discussion as it happened.
They looked at promised features - in particular the ability to stop
runaway daemons at times other than reboot and shutdown. But that is
an extraordinarily rare occurrence which I have yet to see in 32 years
of professional *nix systems programming and systems administration.
They also considered that the pros of declarative startup outweighed
the cons, although these directly result in systemd weaknesses such
as its inability to boot with keyscripts. OpenRC offers an alternative
and promising approach but was given little consideration.
The TC paid little or no attention to the real problem with systemd
(and to a lesser extent with upstart) - they are power plays to
force other distros to resemble RHEL (or Ubuntu).
Making your competitors copy you allows you to weaken them by making
them waste effort, and allows you to market your distro as the one
true Linux distro which all others aspire to copy.
It is unclear which if any of the TC were improperly influenced by
Redhat (or Canonical) and which if any merely looked at the promised
features without considering the more fundamental issues.
Gnu/Linux probably does need a new init, and something along the
lines of the core 1% of systemd with optional cgroups support would
be a good approach. But allowing Redhat (or Canonical or anybody
else) to churn your distro at will is not a smart move, and thus
far only Slackware and Gentoo among the majors seem to have the
common-sense to resist systemd's glitter.
In the case of Debian, the TC's decision was particularly unwise
because Debian supports multiple OSs and systemd only runs on Linux.
sysvinit is excellent but not necessarily "staggeringly marvelous".
However compared to a distro committing suicide by systemd (or
upstart) it is the preferred choice until something newer and
better can be adopted.
I thank Tim and Slávek and others for making TDE optionally work
with systemd without depending upon systemd - unlike Debian where
systemd proponents are frantically changing packages to unnecessarily
require systemd.
Mike Bird
4:26 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thursday 18 September 2014 17:21:49 Mike Bird wrote:
sysvinit is excellent but not necessarily
"staggeringly marvelous".
However compared to a distro committing suicide by systemd (or
upstart) it is the preferred choice until something newer and
better can be adopted.
So why did Debian dismiss it before the discussion ever got to TC? Question,
not rhetorical retort. If systemd and Upstart are both undesirable, and the
TC only considered Upstart and systemd, then the narrowness or otherwise of
the voting margin is irrelevant.
Lisi
5:14 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thu September 18 2014 09:26:36 Lisi Reisz wrote:
So why did Debian dismiss it before the discussion
ever got to TC?
Question, not rhetorical retort. If systemd and Upstart are both
undesirable, and the TC only considered Upstart and systemd, then the
narrowness or otherwise of the voting margin is irrelevant.
There are benefits to declarative startup - although systemd
does it badly and things like keyscripts don't work.
I expect sysvinit will eventually be replaced by something
actually better, but neither systemd nor upstart is it.
The Debian TC may be great coders but whether through bias
or naïveté they failed to consider the implications of
allowing Redhat (or Canonical) to churn Debian.
I'm not sure this discussion is really on-topic for this list,
though, as TDE (unlike Debian) has done it right - supporting
systemd where available but not depending on it.
Mike Bird
6:06 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Mike Bird <mgb-trinity(a)yosemite.net> wrote:
Gnu/Linux probably does need a new init, and something
along the
lines of the core 1% of systemd with optional cgroups support would
be a good approach.
Just like X, sysvinit was proclaimed in need of replacement many years
ago, for many reasons.
The problem is that the functionality of these packages has been built
over time to answer particular problems. Any new system is going to
have to go through exactly the same process, the slow evolution of
"Gee, I didn't think anyone used it for that."
Sysvinit allowed for parallel boot without changing "everything". And
it's especially good at being able to change pretty much any single
component without a reboot.
This kind of flexibility will, I believe, turn out to be more
important than the systemd developers believe it to be.
I will echo that, being just a user, I am happy to use whatever works.
I thank Tim and Slávek and others for making TDE
optionally work
with systemd without depending upon systemd - unlike Debian where
systemd proponents are frantically changing packages to unnecessarily
require systemd.
Indeed. Thank you.
Curt-
--
The secret of happiness is freedom,
and the secret of freedom is courage.
- Thucydides
7:22 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 schrieb Curt Howland:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Mike Bird
<mgb-trinity(a)yosemite.net> wrote:
Just some system-rafiness from debian jessie:
Logfiles are binary. So you can't simply boot with a live disto and look at the
logfiles. Better even, there are no persistent logfiles by default. Well, who would care
to look at logfiles, anyway?
systemd/logind/journald/networkd/usersession share PID 1. Great, if somthing there goes
haywire you have to reboot the system, 'cause you cannot kill one of these processes
individually. On the other hand, who would ever have a system running more than a week,
now that it's booting so fast? Well, and for the Windows user we have implemented the
"reboot after upgrade"-feature at last. Now isn't that great?
Maybe these points are of no value for desktop users, but it's essential in my
business that systems run reliably and can quite well be fixed remotely. That's not
the case with systemd any more. It's diametrically to unix philosophy. It's more
like "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them" than "Freedom of choice"
If systemd will become mandatory on Debian I already see myself packing things up and move
to an other Unix land. Well, hopefully TDE will work on FreeBSD or OpenBSD then :-)
Nik
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
Gnu/Linux probably does need a new init, and
something along the
lines of the core 1% of systemd with optional cgroups support would
be a good approach.
Just like X, sysvinit was proclaimed in need of replacement many years
ago, for many reasons.
The problem is that the functionality of these packages has been built
over time to answer particular problems. Any new system is going to
have to go through exactly the same process, the slow evolution of
"Gee, I didn't think anyone used it for that."
Sysvinit allowed for parallel boot without changing "everything". And
it's especially good at being able to change pretty much any single
component without a reboot.
This kind of flexibility will, I believe, turn out to be more
important than the systemd developers believe it to be.
I will echo that, being just a user, I am happy to use whatever works.
I thank Tim and Slávek and others for making TDE
optionally work
with systemd without depending upon systemd - unlike Debian where
systemd proponents are frantically changing packages to unnecessarily
require systemd.
Indeed. Thank you.
Curt-
8:38 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 schrieb Curt
Howland:
I don't see how they could get away with this on servers; uptime is
typically measured in hundreds of days here and is only interrupted when a
kernel update is required (e.g. when upgrading to another Debian/Ubuntu
version).
TDE will not intentionally introduce a hard dependency on systemd;
personally I hate the DBUS design and implementation and have avoided it
wherever possible. Even the new hardware library can have all
DBUS-related code disabled (albeit with some loss in functionality).
Tim
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Mike Bird
<mgb-trinity(a)yosemite.net>
wrote:
Just some system-rafiness from debian jessie:
Logfiles are binary. So you can't simply boot with a live disto and look
at the logfiles. Better even, there are no persistent logfiles by default.
Well, who would care to look at logfiles, anyway?
systemd/logind/journald/networkd/usersession share PID 1. Great, if
somthing there goes haywire you have to reboot the system, 'cause you
cannot kill one of these processes individually. On the other hand, who
would ever have a system running more than a week, now that it's booting
so fast? Well, and for the Windows user we have implemented the "reboot
after upgrade"-feature at last. Now isn't that great?
Maybe these points are of no value for desktop users, but it's essential
in my business that systems run reliably and can quite well be fixed
remotely. That's not the case with systemd any more. It's diametrically to
unix philosophy. It's more like "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to
find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" than
"Freedom of choice"
If systemd will become mandatory on Debian I already see myself packing
things up and move to an other Unix land. Well, hopefully TDE will work on
FreeBSD or OpenBSD then :-)
Nik Gnu/Linux probably does need a new init, and
something along the
lines of the core 1% of systemd with optional cgroups support would
be a good approach.
Just like X, sysvinit was proclaimed in need of replacement many years
ago, for many reasons.
The problem is that the functionality of these packages has been built
over time to answer particular problems. Any new system is going to
have to go through exactly the same process, the slow evolution of
"Gee, I didn't think anyone used it for that."
Sysvinit allowed for parallel boot without changing "everything". And
it's especially good at being able to change pretty much any single
component without a reboot.
This kind of flexibility will, I believe, turn out to be more
important than the systemd developers believe it to be.
I will echo that, being just a user, I am happy to use whatever works.
I thank Tim and Slávek and others for making TDE
optionally work
with systemd without depending upon systemd - unlike Debian where
systemd proponents are frantically changing packages to unnecessarily
require systemd.
Indeed. Thank you.
Curt-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlQbQrsACgkQLaxZSoRZrGFV1ADfbno97D6EPgSdTJgTJxI7leds
cjLrDi5bgeJDjQDgqNgeUXLs8Ew4R3/JbEzj/nqJR7rO9tNvxY1G5g==
=nIFO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:40 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
Lisi, the Debian vote, as far as I am aware, actually included all
currently available options. In other words upstart and systemd were not
the only choices available. The thing is 4 TC members (Canonical employees)
voted for what they know, the other 4 voted for systemd (I personally think
it was a deliberate vote against Canonical control) and that then left the
chairmans vote which, as we know, went systemd (I also believe Garbee voted
systemd to vote against Canonical control). I have read the discussion and
I will try to find the actual vote, in order to see if my recollection is
correct, and I will reply again if I am wrong to clarify things.
On 19 September 2014 06:38, Timothy Pearson <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net>
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 schrieb Curt
Howland:
default.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Mike Bird
<mgb-trinity(a)yosemite.net>
wrote:
Just some system-rafiness from debian jessie:
Logfiles are binary. So you can't simply boot with a live disto and look
at the logfiles. Better even, there are no persistent logfiles by Gnu/Linux probably does need a new init, and
something along the
lines of the core 1% of systemd with optional cgroups support would
be a good approach.
Just like X, sysvinit was proclaimed in need of replacement many years
ago, for many reasons.
The problem is that the functionality of these packages has been built
over time to answer particular problems. Any new system is going to
have to go through exactly the same process, the slow evolution of
"Gee, I didn't think anyone used it for that."
Sysvinit allowed for parallel boot without changing "everything". And
it's especially good at being able to change pretty much any single
component without a reboot.
This kind of flexibility will, I believe, turn out to be more
important than the systemd developers believe it to be.
I will echo that, being just a user, I am happy to use whatever works.
I thank Tim and Slávek and others for making TDE
optionally work
with systemd without depending upon systemd - unlike Debian where
systemd proponents are frantically changing packages to unnecessarily
require systemd.
Indeed. Thank you.
Curt-
Well, who would care to look at logfiles,
anyway?
systemd/logind/journald/networkd/usersession share PID 1. Great, if
somthing there goes haywire you have to reboot the system, 'cause you
cannot kill one of these processes individually. On the other hand, who
would ever have a system running more than a week, now that it's booting
so fast? Well, and for the Windows user we have implemented the "reboot
after upgrade"-feature at last. Now isn't that great?
Maybe these points are of no value for desktop users, but it's essential
in my business that systems run reliably and can quite well be fixed
remotely. That's not the case with systemd any more. It's diametrically
to
unix philosophy. It's more like "One
Ring to rule them all, One Ring to
find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" than
"Freedom of choice"
If systemd will become mandatory on Debian I already see myself packing
things up and move to an other Unix land. Well, hopefully TDE will work
on
FreeBSD or OpenBSD then :-)
Nik
I don't see how they could get away with this on servers; uptime is
typically measured in hundreds of days here and is only interrupted when a
kernel update is required (e.g. when upgrading to another Debian/Ubuntu
version).
TDE will not intentionally introduce a hard dependency on systemd;
personally I hate the DBUS design and implementation and have avoided it
wherever possible. Even the new hardware library can have all
DBUS-related code disabled (albeit with some loss in functionality).
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlQbQrsACgkQLaxZSoRZrGFV1ADfbno97D6EPgSdTJgTJxI7leds
cjLrDi5bgeJDjQDgqNgeUXLs8Ew4R3/JbEzj/nqJR7rO9tNvxY1G5g==
=nIFO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail:
trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive:
http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
19 Sep
19 Sep
6:18 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] systemd and sysvinit, a question
On Thursday 18 September 2014 23:40:31 Michael . wrote:
Lisi, the Debian vote, as far as I am aware, actually
included all
currently available options. In other words upstart and systemd were not
the only choices available. The thing is 4 TC members (Canonical employees)
voted for what they know, the other 4 voted for systemd (I personally think
it was a deliberate vote against Canonical control) and that then left the
chairmans vote which, as we know, went systemd (I also believe Garbee voted
systemd to vote against Canonical control). I have read the discussion and
I will try to find the actual vote, in order to see if my recollection is
correct, and I will reply again if I am wrong to clarify things.
Thanks, Michael. That is very clear.
Lisi
3746
days inactive
3747
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alexandre -
Curt Howland -
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp -
Lisi Reisz -
Michael . -
Mike Bird -
Steven D'Aprano -
Timothy Pearson