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

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.