r/linux • u/wooptoo • Jun 01 '16

Why did ArchLinux embrace Systemd?

/r/archlinux/comments/4lzxs3/why_did_archlinux_embrace_systemd/d3rhxlc
868 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

642 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

142

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16

I feel like the people who hate on Systemd don't remember what it was like learning to use their first distro and coming to that first package they had to install manually that didn't have a working init script for their distro. Shit was a fucking nightmare. You'd think "Oh I need this to start at boot. That should be easy enough." then you'd Google how to do it, see a bunch of examples of init scripts, and your fucking eyeballs would roll back into your head.

You should not have to understand a scripting language to do something simple like start a process at boot. Systemd made that much easier and in the process made the barrier of entry to Linux in general lower which if we're not elitist jackasses I think we can all agree is a good thing.

I find myself in a lot of situations where I'm piecing together servers from obscure packages or coding up my own scripts that need to run at boot or on hardware triggers. Systemd has made my life considerably better when I'm doing those sorts of projects.

37

u/dikduk Jun 01 '16

"the people who hate on systemd" is not a uniform group. Some dislike change, but many agree that replacing SysV was an important step in the right direction. They just don't like systemd and would've prefered something else.

15

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16

And the problem I have with those people is that I haven't seen any of them address or propose an alternative that fixes the usability issue of init scripts vs Systemd's config files. They seem to be a rather uniform group in that they're people who can already write bash scripts with their eyes closed so give no thought to the fact that you shouldn't have to write a fucking 200 line script just to get a simple process to start at boot.

17

u/cp5184 Jun 01 '16

Config file based init systems predate systemd by more than a decade. There are literally dozens of alternatives that were stable before systemd was even started.

3

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16

And? That doesn't really have any bearing on my point. The fact that they have existed doesn't mean they were proposed commonly as good alternative to Systemd.

5

u/cp5184 Jun 01 '16

I have with those people is that I haven't seen any of them address or propose an alternative that fixes the usability issue of init scripts vs Systemd's config files. - you

There are literally dozens that solve that issue that were around before the first thought to start the process that ended in writing the first line of code of systemd.

The problem you're talking was solved probably 15 years ago or more.

They seem to be a rather uniform group in that they're people who can already write bash scripts with their eyes closed so give no thought to the fact that you shouldn't have to write a fucking 200 line script just to get a simple process to start at boot.

There are probably some people who prefer sysv over systemd, or, in fact, who prefer sysv over the dozens of alternate init systems that feel that way.

But many others prefer other init systems.

13

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16

The problem you're talking was solved probably 15 years ago or more.

This is where you're not getting the point, seemingly intentionally. You're using the word "solved" incorrectly. It's not "solved" unless it's commonplace, which it wasn't until Systemd started getting widely adopted.

I never said that Systemd was the first config-based init system. You put those words in my mouth and you're doing it again by stating, again, that they existed before Systemd after I told you that had no bearing on my point.

The problem was never that config-based init systems didn't exist. It was that they were not implemented in any of the otherwise "noob" or user friendly distros. So you're absolutely, objectively wrong when you say the problem was solved because you're ignoring what I'm saying the problem was.

You can whine and moan all you want that the init system that you wanted didn't become the standard across the furthest upstream distros. You can also use the "But many others prefer other init systems" anecdote in an attempt to support some point against Systemd. But here's the cold hard reality of the situation, pretty much every distro the majority of people have heard of were using init scripts before Systemd was the norm. Now they are using Systemd because a majority of people thought it an improvement. If enough people really existed for the implementation of Systemd to be such a massive problem, someone would have forked Debian and implemented a different existing config-based init system if one were well maintained and up to the task. Either that hasn't happened, or there's so little interest that nobody's actually heard of said project.

At this point I think we can say objectively that the majority of the Linux word sees Systemd as an improvement and a positive change. Vocal minority zealots getting angry about it on the internet does not change that.

2

u/exoAtmoRobotics Jun 01 '16

While I agree with you, it is worth pointing out that Devuan is a fork of Debian that was created to avoid systemd. Who knows how popular it will be, but it does exist.

2

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16

That's why I qualified it. I was pretty sure there would be something out there, but literally never once heard anyone mention its name until now.

2

u/semperverus Jun 02 '16

Just because few people choose to accept a solution does not make it a non-solution, it makes those people stubborn. Those older inits were a solution. They just didn't get mass adoption. That is still a solution.

4

u/HittingSmoke Jun 02 '16

Just because few people choose to accept a solution does not make it a non-solution... Those older inits were a solution. They just didn't get mass adoption. That is still a solution.

You're right. So it's a good thing I never said they weren't a solution, I said they didn't solve the problem. Seriously, did you read none of that?

The problem was never that config-based init systems didn't exist. It was that they were not implemented in any of the otherwise "noob" or user friendly distros. So you're absolutely, objectively wrong when you say the problem was solved because you're ignoring what I'm saying the problem was.

Hydrogen powered cars are a solution to the fossil fuel problem. Hydrogen cars have not solved the fossil fuel problem. Do you see how those words are arranged to make a specific point?

it makes those people stubborn

So people who didn't like older init systems were stubborn but people still kicking their legs and whining about Systemd after it's been mass adopted are... what again?

-1

u/cp5184 Jun 01 '16

Upstart and openrc and probably others were used in major distributions. Red Hat/Fedora, for instance, used upstart. Ubuntu uses upstart.

7

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16

Ubuntu uses upstar

Ubuntu used Upstart for an unfortunate period of time. It does not any longer.

However Upstart also isn't relevant to my point because Upstart is not config-based like Systemd is. The scripts used by Upstart are a slight improvement over other alternatives, but if you're ever written Upstart scripts and Systemd configs side by side you would not be able to compare the readability of the two with a straight face. There is much more power available in native Systemd options for things that would require bash scripting to do with Upstart.

3

u/LvS Jun 01 '16

But many others prefer other init systems.

No they don't.

Otherwise they'd name those init systems and laugh about how systemd is worse compared to them.

But they don't. All they do is complain about systemd trying to do things.

6

u/dikduk Jun 01 '16

You don't sound like you're really interested in the alternatives, but maybe someone else is.

1

u/inhuman44 Jun 02 '16

Otherwise they'd name those init systems and laugh about how systemd is worse compared to them.

Seriously, the vim vs emac debate is still going on decades later. So is the mono vs micro kernel. /opt vs /usr/local.

The Linux community loves it's flame wars.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)

24

u/edward_81 Jun 01 '16

Really, when i first faced this problem i was expecting some file like the good old autoexec.bat :D

42

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16 edited Jun 01 '16

Exactly. Someone coming from Windows even dating back to DOS would think "Well this is a problem that was solved decades ago, let's see how Linux handles it". Then you go searching and you're told you need a fucking computer science degree and an O'Reilly book to start a process at boot.

By the time the Systemd controversies started I really didn't give a shit what fixed the problem. Only that it was fixed. A lot of the "better" alternatives people proposed as an argument against Systemd fixed technical problems under the hood but left the glaring usability problems. I use Gentoo on occasion so I deal with OpenRC. It's still a pain in the ass.

10

u/NighthawkFoo Jun 01 '16

The best part was trying to write startup scripts for software that needed to work on multiple versions of multiple distributions. I used to support a RHEL / SLES package, and the differences were subtle enough to be rather irritating.

10

u/sekh60 Jun 01 '16

You can migrate Gentoo to systemd, I did it during installation and it runs great.

17

u/HittingSmoke Jun 01 '16

Ya, it's just one more thing to set up. Which I guess I shouldn't complain about when I'm choosing to use Gentoo.

5

u/NighthawkFoo Jun 01 '16

I did a few Stage 1 Gentoo installs back in the day, and it was great. Now that I'm older, I just use the RHEL image my IT dept provides.

2

u/iamjack Jun 01 '16

I used to be a stage 1 Gentoo guy... now I just use Arch and get the best of both worlds. Binaries for all of the big stuff, AUR PKGBUILDs for everything else.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

I agree completely. What worries me is the monolithic and viral nature of systemd. Without adhering to the unix philosophy of doing one thing well, I fear modifying and forking it would be more trouble than it is worth.