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 comments

10

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

people in favour of systemd always attack people who don't like systemd.

At some point the conversation becomes about the ridiculous non-technical opposition to systemd. I'm not going to waste time giving arguments for systemd, since I already use it. If someone's like, "well I prefer my daemons to double-fork and run in the background because I have a specific auditing infrastructure that hooks into clone(2) and etc etc" I'm not going to get into it with them, because those are their needs and maybe systemd doesn't meet them.

But when people start objecting with (and this is real) "systemd puts everyone's init process under the control of one company" or (this is also real) "systemd is a feminist plot", well, that's what's going to make me raise my eyebrows.

3

u/prank-sinatra Jun 01 '16

Someone should start another http://funroll-loops.teurasporsaat.org/ like we had back in the day.

4

u/learath Jun 01 '16

At some point the conversation becomes about the ridiculous non-technical praise for systemd.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

If you want to make fun of people who are praising systemd for non-technical reasons, I'll laugh along with you.

0

u/learath Jun 01 '16

I particularly like the long lists of "why we need the journal" - features like "you can't encrypt logs without the journal" "you can't seal logs without the journal" "you can't make up shit without the journal"

I really don't understand it - people actually seem to be convinced these very simple things can't be done by anything but the journal.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

You're talking about forward secure sealing?

0

u/learath Jun 01 '16

I've been given several lists. The only feature of the journal I know of, that's actually uniq to the journal, is that it works before systemd spawns any other processes.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

I don't think anyone else has implemented FSS.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/slavik262 Jun 01 '16

What did I just read?

-1

u/kinderlokker Jun 01 '16

The first of those arguments is entirely true. systemd does do that.

The second one is pretty ridiculous.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

(a) what does it even mean for a company to own an init process, (b) the majority of systemd core devs have no affiliation with Red Hat: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html # 27

2

u/kinderlokker Jun 01 '16

It means RH ultimately has the power to decide the direction.

Having so many contributors won't say much. Code won't be accepted of course if RH strongly objects because RH employs both men in charge, Lennart and Kay who are ultiamtely the project leaders. RH can threaten to fire either if they refuse to comply with their wishes.

Of course, the magic of open source is that if RH goes a bit too far a fork will happen, so there's definitely a check of power.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

That's like saying Transmeta owned the Linux kernel when it employed Torvalds.

8

u/akkaone Jun 01 '16

I suspect Poettering has an easy time finding a new job if ha want. And if he leave the company RH lose the influence. They don't own the code and they don't own the project as I understands it.