Jump to content
funtoo forums
Renich

My 2 cents on systemd

Recommended Posts

I agree to that.

And I disagree, It goes both ways, on the gentoo list I've seen some folks, move to systemd, the thing is the systemd detractors tend to be more vocal about it(I find most to be people with too much time to waste) I'm in fact one of the people who got a bad taste of systemd in the first try, back when I was on Arch, it made me go to debian, and then I came to Gentoo and Funtoo(wiht a bit of BSDs in between that), and at some point decided to give systemd a try without the prejudices that you hear all the time, and now I quite like how pratical it is, and how easier it makes installing gentoo, and systemd-nspwan is one of my favorite things ever It's been more than 1 year now I haven't run chroot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • The build manager is based on Git.
  • It has awesome documentation

Gentoo uses git now too so that isn't something in favor of Funtoo anymore.

In my desktop with Gentoo I have this now for getting the portage tree:

[DEFAULT]
main-repo = gentoo

[gentoo]
location = /var/lib/portage/repos/gentoo
sync-type = git
sync-uri = https://github.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo
auto-sync = true

The main thing I like about Funtoo is the profile system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not seeing all these benefits that I'm supposed to have. You took away the little bit of programmability I had with the shell and gave me back a config file and told me its for my own good and now I have to go learn all these new stuff from shifty documentation.

 

I never had a problem finding my boot logs. I do have a problem with systemd not letting me get to a true single user mode where I can fsck my partitions, let alone the root partition.

 

Seriously, exactly what benefit do I get? And don't point me to a website. I've read the propoganda, but in practice, its not there. Instead I have a 1.6MB init instead of the old 36K init, and a directory full of tools (all in the hundreds of K). And I hear I need DBUS just to start a service .... cause I need more dependencies in my startup?

 

Really, the small program mindset worked for Unix for the same reason OOP works, and why bastardizations of that philosophy are destroying computing. Encapsulation. With small binaries communicating through pipes the kernel enforces encapsulation and your API is stdin/stdout. Breaking encapsulation and enforcing dependencies is WRONG and systemd is all about enforced dependencies. I've been doing this too long not to see that this is a formula for a brittle system.

 

For what benefit?

 

I want LESS to break! KISS!

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have totally missed my point. I need to assign an IP address on an embedded system (yes, memory constrained like original Unix). I don't want systemd-networkd to be available. Telling me that its more efficient for systemd-networkd to parse its configs than it is for my shell to do it is nonsense. And why would I bother to learn this? It brings zero value other than I can't use the same syntax and command lines that have worked for 40 years.

 

And the binary logs get corrupt and they just ignore it. There is a 'wont fix' bug report on it. Blatantly ignoring data corruption! I run systemd on my laptop and I know what crap it causes. When I have time, Funtoo will go back on the system and I can tell you from direct comparison that Funtoo ran just as fast, and had fewer problems.

 

And you think uptimes of 2-3 weeks is good? I'd fire you. Before systemd uptimes were in years and then we asked what hardware component died.

 

 

In any modern system facing the internet, not upgrading a kernel weekly is just hoarding kernel bugs to be pwned IMHO, I would prefer to design something reliable that can be resilient if one system fails, so doing a reboot is no problem at any given time. I was talking about my desktop system.

In my view, memory constrains won't be an issue in embedded when you get to the 10nm scale, look at CHIP(The 9USD SoC) that thing is pretty small in physical size and you can definitely run systemd with plenty of space to do embedded stuff on it.

I'd also argue that a parser for ini-like files, would be much smaller and simpler, than a shell interpreter, so I'd put systemd and --enable-networkd when configuring the compilation, I in fact quite like the idea of a shellless system depending on what it's doing, exploits that run /bin/sh after breaking a arbitrary code execution vulnerability, it would be pointless, and would just end up in a crash.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not seeing all these benefits that I'm supposed to have. You took away the little bit of programmability I had with the shell and gave me back a config file and told me its for my own good and now I have to go learn all these new stuff from shifty documentation.

 

I never had a problem finding my boot logs. I do have a problem with systemd not letting me get to a true single user mode where I can fsck my partitions, let alone the root partition.

 

 

It can be done, If I'm not wrong, the emergency target is what you would be looking for, about a year a go I asked if you could even do a split of a system that would have everything in one partiotion into /usr and  root partitions, WITHOUT a reboot, while running systemd, It can be done, I didn't try it, but got the most knowlegable guy about systemd at the gentoo list(Canek) to give it a try, turns out you can jump back and forth betweeen the systemd you have in the initramfs and your real system, and can change a lot of stuff from the initramfs, an fsck would be easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In any modern system facing the internet, not upgrading a kernel weekly is just hoarding kernel bugs to be pwned IMHO, I would prefer to design something reliable that can be resilient if one system fails, so doing a reboot is no problem at any given time. I was talking about my desktop system.

In my view, memory constrains won't be an issue in embedded when you get to the 10nm scale, look at CHIP(The 9USD SoC) that thing is pretty small in physical size and you can definitely run systemd with plenty of space to do embedded stuff on it.

I'd also argue that a parser for ini-like files, would be much smaller and simpler, than a shell interpreter, so I'd put systemd and --enable-networkd when configuring the compilation, I in fact quite like the idea of a shellless system depending on what it's doing, exploits that run /bin/sh after breaking a arbitrary code execution vulnerability, it would be pointless, and would just end up in a crash.

 

Internal network, not facing Internet. And even if it was, its double-NAT, one on my end (a Cisco ASA) and the other done by the ISP.

 

You upgrade your kernel every week? There are weekly bugs that allow remote root access in the Linux kernel? Either the kernel devel team has gone to shit in recent years or you are straight up lying. Kernel issues that allow remote root (PWND? Are you 18?) are incredibly rare. The problem is almost always userspace. The last big one was blamed on bash, but was really idiots using bash to process CGI and not untainting properly ... totally wrong tool for the job and running user input from the web into your shell and executing it is so stupid ... I don't have words.

 

Parsing systemd files faster than the shell? We could argue this for days, but its never going to be a noticeable difference and you took away part of my control ... and have me what in return? A microsecond faster boot? That's not a trade off I care to make. I don't upgrade my kernel every week and reboot all the time.

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It can be done, If I'm not wrong, the emergency target is what you would be looking for, about a year a go I asked if you could even do a split of a system that would have everything in one partiotion into /usr and root partitions, WITHOUT a reboot, while running systemd, It can be done, I didn't try it, but got the most knowlegable guy about systemd at the gentoo list(Canek) to give it a try, turns out you can jump back and forth betweeen the systemd you have in the initramfs and your real system, and can change a lot of stuff, an fsck would be easy.

Anywhere else

init S

 

You are telling me you don't know how either? "Would be easy" doesn't have the same effect as "The command is ..." In fact, "would be" sounds kinds iffy to me. This is pretty basic stuff. And if I have to ask an 'expert' just to get into a rescue mode that will actually let me check my filesystems ... something is very wrong!

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internal network, not facing Internet. And even if it was, its double-NAT, one on my end (a Cisco ASA) and the other done by the ISP.

 

You upgrade your kernel every week? There are weekly bugs that allow remote root access in the Linux kernel? Either the kernel devel team has gone to shit in recent years or you are straight up lying. Kernel issues that allow remote root (PWND? Are you 18?) are incredibly rare. The problem is almost always userspace. The last big one was blamed on bash, but was really idiots using bash to process CGI and not untainting properly ... totally wrong tool for the job and running user input from the web into your shell and executing it is so stupid ... I don't have words.

 

 

Starting the services faster is not the goal, it's having a fine grained management resource wise(CPU, memory, IO) of the process and it's child's trough cgroups to ensure, proper start  and stop of services, without having to be a shell ninja.

The kernel team in fact kind of has gone to the shit, the beloved by many Linus Torlvalds has let Microsoft put stuff like this in the kernel:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c#L1026

Yes you folks have seen it, the linux kernel restarting an userspace service. Should the kernel do that? NO!

Red Hat releases upgrades for the RHEL kernel almost weekly, and the long term kernels at kernel.org recieve security upgrades almost weekly, Hadn't you noticed that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywhere else

init S

 

You are telling me you don't know how either? "Would be easy" doesn't have the same effect as "The command is ..." In fact, "would be" sounds kinds iffy to me. This is pretty basic stuff. And if I have to ask an 'expert' just to get into a rescue mode that will actually let me check my filesystems ... something is very wrong!

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

 

adding a 1 to the kernel command line is the way I've done it, I won't read documentation for you when I'm not needing it, It can be done, I know how to read manuals, I can do it, I just don't need to do it often, I have configured my boot process to regularly fsck my drive anyway.

 

The comand to switch to the emergency target would be systemctl isolate emergency.target, again you not wanting to learn systemd, and thus making yourself wrong ideas is not my problem it's yours, I will be able to handle any system that comes my way, you won't because you are reluctant to learn.

 

PD: don't get caught by the nuances of my english, It's not my first language and in fact mostly self-learnt, I also don't like to pretend I know it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

adding a 1 to the kernel command line is the way I've done it, I won't read documentation for you when I'm not needing it, It can be done, I know how to read manuals, I can do it, I just don't need to do it often, I have configured my boot process to regularly fsck my drive anyway.

 

The comand to switch to the emergency target would be systemctl isolate emergency.target, again you not wanting to learn systemd, and thus making yourself wrong ideas is not my problem it's yours, I will be able to handle any system that comes my way, you won't because you are reluctant to learn.

 

PD: don't get caught by the nuances of my english, It's not my first language and in fact mostly self-learnt, I also don't like to pretend I know it all.

No, but you are pretending that I don't already know these things and making it personal. Your English wasn't the issue. The fact is that the procedures that SHOULD work, don't. In spite of the fact that I shouldn't need to learn new commands, I have, and they fail.

 

The worst is when I tell systemd to stop a service and it says it did. I change a config file. I tell it to start the service, and it says it did. But ... no new config? I finally saw the pid never changed. I killed the process manually and restarted it and it worked fine. I lost hours because systemd lied to me.

 

So, instead of answering my question on what value systemd brings, you make assumptions on my intelligence and my character and THIS is another reason I want no part of systemd. When asked why I need it, I'm told I must be stupid.

 

Stupid me will stick with OpenRC until something better comes along ... and systemd isn't.

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but you are pretending that I don't already know these things and making it personal. Your English wasn't the issue. The fact is that the procedures that SHOULD work, don't. In spite of the fact that I shouldn't need to learn new commands, I have, and they fail.

 

The worst is when I tell systemd to stop a service and it says it did. I change a config file. I tell it to start the service, and it says it did. But ... no new config? I finally saw the pid never changed. I killed the process manually and restarted it and it worked fine. I lost hours because systemd lied to me.

 

So, instead of answering my question on what value systemd brings, you make assumptions on my intelligence and my character and THIS is another reason I want no part of systemd. When asked why I need it, I'm told I must be stupid.

 

Stupid me will stick with OpenRC until something better comes along ... and systemd isn't.

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

 

'I shouldn't need to learn new commands', but you learned the OpenRC commands and those had to be new to you at some point,  coming from debian,  or a bsd style init like Arch had, and you were asking me to solve a problem you had using my time to read stuff that's available for everyone to read, and of special interest for poeple like you( and me) that deal with computers, and to give you a detailed solution, we are discussing about software here not giving free support. That's why I said it was your problem. I know you do know the commands and in fact are knowledgeable about a lot of stuff I've read some of your post in the forum.

 

I'm just being ralistic here, systemd has come to stay for some years at least in the linux ecosystem, and just buring your head in the sand and wanting pretend it's not there, and having an 'anti-systemd' attitude, will only cost you in your career, I like most of it, I won't defend it as the most clever solution anyone could ever have came up with, but It works, and as all the software has bugs, bugs will exist as long as software and human error exis. Anyway I guess in your case you will actually learn the stuff and rant in formus like this one, longing for the days of  'the true unix'

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'I shouldn't need to learn new commands', but you learned the OpenRC commands and those had to be new to you at some point, coming from debian, or a bsd style init like Arch had, and you were asking me to solve a problem you had using my time to read stuff that's available for everyone to read, and of special interest for poeple like you( and me) that deal with computers, and to give you a detailed solution, we are discussing about software here not giving free support. That's why I said it was your problem. I know you do know the commands and in fact are knowledgeable about a lot of stuff I've read some of your post in the forum.

 

I'm just being ralistic here, systemd has come to stay for some years at least in the linux ecosystem, and just buring your head in the sand and wanting pretend it's not there, and having an 'anti-systemd' attitude, will only cost you in your career, I like most of it, I won't defend it as the most clever solution anyone could ever have came up with, but It works, and as all the software has bugs, bugs will exist as long as software and human error exis. Anyway I guess in your case you will actually learn the stuff and rant in formus like this one, longing for the days of 'the true unix'

Peace.

Just because everyone else uses it doesn't mean I will. Everyone else used Windows95 too, and they also had about the same arguments.

 

I said NO, Linux is better. I'm not caving and 'its here to stay' is not a valid reason to use it.

 

And '/etc/init.d/myservice start' works on most Unix systems. Its only systemd that changed that. Gentoo wasn't much of a learning curve and it didn't FORCE me. I even had other options and these did not affect the rest of the system. Normal sysV commands were wrapped and worked.

 

Some day there will be something better, but not today.

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW: I see you as kind of a unix purits, so here's a video from one of the men who was there when unix was born(Prof. Kernighan),  about pipes and some programming stuff. When unix started, It was not so much about 'one program, one thing', as the design goal, but more about memory constrains.

You don't seem to understand what Kernighan is saying. It's true that memory constraints played a roll in the creation of early UNIX tools but as Kernighan says in the interview, "Necessity is the mother of invention."  That invention - the UNIX philosophy of small tools interacting with one another - continued on its own merit for decades after memory constraints ceased to be a consideration. 

 

As Kernighan and Pike wrote in 1984, "[The UNIX] style was based on the use of tools: using programs separately or in combination to get a job done, rather than doing it by hand, by monolithic self-sufficient subsystems, or by special-purpose, one-time programs."

 

 

Another lie is saying you have to reboot for everything like in windows, apart from being a cheap argument because, the reason is mostly about kernel drivers, wich has nothing to do with systemd.,

You never established that anyone was lying about anything. It's rude to claim that someone is lying just because you don't understand or agree with their point of view.

 

PD: The binary logs argument against systemd isn't valid anymore, most livecds and distros have journalctl, and most distros put it in the initramfs also, you yourself said it(systemd is everywhere, isn't it?), and I don't know you but I still can't read and decode bits from the inside of the plate of my hard drive into UTF-8 characters telepathically and have a mental grep to search trough it, You need something that decodes your logs from the BINARY that's on your hard drive anyway, you  need a program to read logs, that's my point, so you CAN read your logs, In fact you can read much more information about failures, and filter it more quickly to get the lines you care about, than what you had by simple text  files in /var/log/, If YOU can't do it only shows you can't or don't want to read manuals nor search the web.

 

Binary log files are not acceptable.  Using a binary format renders them susceptible to corruption and creates a source of problems and incompatibility among tools.

 

Text log files don't require any special tools.  I can use essentially the same tools to examine logs on any system going back to my first UNIX system from 1984.   I don't need to worry about whether my rescue thumb drive has the right version of some specialized utility on it. 

 

Every excuse for adopting binary logs could have been addressed with proper configuration of existing tools and development of user space tools that met the specific needs that were unmet.

 

Your comment about reading manuals is specious.   The fact that many here switched to Funtoo from other distros proves that this has everything to do with philosophical objections to systemd and nothing to do with unwillingness to inability to learn something new.

 

Can you get logs of early boot as this using a traditional grub+sysvinit boot?

Really?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never established that anyone was lying about anything. It's rude to claim that someone is lying just because you don't understand or agree with their point of view.

I've noticed that systemd is very bad about not being able to restart a service on my Sabayon laptop. It will say its stopped when its not, or will say its already starting when I say to start it, if X fails cause I attempt to try binary AMD drivers, it restarts GDM over and over so I can't log in to fix it, it seems impossible to get it to single user mode to fsck root. And it gets odd problems that I can never seem to resolve except with a reboot. The logs are always locked into a binary journal ....

 

Someone turned my Linux box into Windows! The people that like Systemd grew up on Windows and think rebooting the machine is acceptable. Rebooting doesn't fix problems, it hides them. You only reboot to replace the kernel and that's seldom necessary

 

These are the lies or exaggerations whatever you like, I've had that problem with GDM failing, and had no problems finding out how to fix it(emergecy target), and lost no logs at at all, I run fedora on a 32bit mini-hp and gdm doesn't work, so I had to use lightdm, had no trouble changing that using systemd tools.

Here another:

 

Well the systemd guys are making progress I guess.

 

They've sped up the boot time to make all the reboots you'll be doing faster! Sweet!

 

....

 

This is madness. Systemd needs to be stopped or Linux will have the reputation of Windows ME.

 

 

You don't seem to understand what Kernighan is saying. It's true that memory constraints played a roll in the creation of early UNIX tools but as Kernighan says in the interview, "Necessity is the mother of invention."  That invention - the UNIX philosophy of small tools interacting with one another - continued on its own merit for decades after memory constraints ceased to be a consideration. 

 

As Kernighan and Pike wrote in 1984, "[The UNIX] style was based on the use of tools: using programs separately or in combination to get a job done, rather than doing it by hand, by monolithic self-sufficient subsystems, or by special-purpose, one-time programs."

But systemd isn't a monolithic binary doing everything, And uses several programs in combination to get the job done, and I'd think they were referring to the difference between having a separation of hardware, operating system and tools, to what I've read was the norm back then hardware + specific os or program bundled togheter, the fact that systemd uses IPC and not only stdin and stdout and pipes, is just a difference in the way those programs work together in my opinion, and some of its most popular and useful programs came out out of necessity as well (nspwan).

If you actually look at the code main.c(the systemd program PID1, the file that contains it ) Is ~2k lines[1]( I know sysvinit's init.c  in the end is smaller and doesn't have as many includes, but the logic of how the init works is still less than 2k lines of code not a big monolithic thing)

Look at other init programs lenght counting the files that get compiled and contain the logic for the init:

FreeBSD(init.c 1.7K LOC) [2] 

OpenBSD(init.c 1.5k LOC) [3]

sysvinit  ( init.c[2.9k] + utmp.c[~250] + init.h [~100] + init_req.h[~100] + paths.h [~100] + set.h [~20]) 3.5k LOC [4]

 

Really?

I'd have expected someone of the age you seem in your picture to be more mature, and actually comment something useful, a shame you lose your time making fun of people rather than spreading the wisdom you might indeed have.

 

I wasn't the one ranting about not being able to get logs and just pointing out that you can get even more logs than most want anyway, and I will repeat what has said over and over you CAN get your logs binary or plain Text, you can install another logger the one you have been using maybe?, and the fractions of second of extra latency this adds to logging doesn't really affect any service, and if you want to be real fast for any reason for some service, why logging to something as slow as a hard drive?

 

Anyway, lets not waste anymore time on this, the code is what will speak in the end, these flames will just be space wasted in some server.

 

 

[1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/src/core/main.c

[1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/Makefile.am#L1328

 

[2] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sbin/init/init.c?view=markup

[3] http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/init/init.c?annotate=1.54

 

[4] http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/sysvinit/trunk/src/Makefile?view=annotate&root=sysvinit

http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/sysvinit/trunk/src/utmp.c?root=sysvinit&view=markup

http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/sysvinit/trunk/src/init.c?root=sysvinit&view=markup

http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/sysvinit/trunk/src/init.h?root=sysvinit&view=markup

http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/sysvinit/trunk/src/init_req.h?root=sysvinit&view=markup

http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/sysvinit/trunk/src/paths.h?root=sysvinit&view=markup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

These are the lies or exaggerations whatever you like, I've had that problem with GDM failing, and had no problems finding out how to fix it(emergecy target), and lost no logs at at all, I run fedora on a 32bit mini-hp and gdm doesn't work, so I had to use lightdm, had no trouble changing that using systemd tools.

Here another:

 

 

 

 

But systemd isn't a monolithic binary doing everything, And uses several programs in combination to get the job done, and I'd think they were referring to the difference between having a separation of hardware, operating system and tools, to what I've read was the norm back then hardware + specific os or program bundled togheter, the fact that systemd uses IPC and not only stdin and stdout and pipes, is just a difference in the way those programs work together in my opinion, and some of its most popular and useful programs came out out of necessity as well (nspwan).

If you actually look at the code core.c(the systemd program PID1 ) Is ~2k lines[1]( I know sysvinit's init.c in the end is smaller and doesn't have as many includes, but the logic of how the init works is still less than 2k lines of code not a big monolithic thing)

Look at other init programs lenght counting the files that get compiled and contain the logic for the init:

FreeBSD(init.c 1.7K LOC) [2]

OpenBSD(init.c 1.5k LOC) [3]

sysvinit ( init.c[2.9k] + utmp.c[~250] + init.h [~100] + init_req.h[~100] + paths.h [~100] + set.h [~20]) 3.5k LOC [4]

 

I'd have expected someone of the age you seem in your picture to be more mature, and actually comment something useful, a shame you lose your time making fun of people rather than spreading the wisdom you might indeed have.

 

I wasn't the one ranting about not being able to get logs and just pointing out that you can get even more logs than most want anyway, and I will repeat what has said over and over you CAN get your logs binary or plain Text, you can install another logger the one you have been using maybe?, and the fractions of second of extra latency this adds to logging doesn't really affect any service, and if you want to be real fast for any reason for some service, why logging to something as slow as a hard drive?

 

Anyway, lets not waste anymore time on this, the code is what will speak in the end, these flames will just be space wasted in some server.

 

Please stop. There are no lies nor exaggerations, just relations of personal experience ... from highly experienced people no less. For example, I'm not a moron and I can make GDM stop respawning! SO, instead of insinuating that I'm too dumb to make it stop, I obviously had some other point I was making.

 

My point is that only systemd seems to think that this is a good idea! Even systems that (erroneously IMHO) respawn a service that dies, will refuse to do so without limits on the rate. This is absolutely dangerous and can bring a system to its knees. What if it died due to low memory? Running it again could cause something ELSE to die. If I wanted automatic service respawn, I'd have Nagios do it and it would be done right, and it would never respawn twice in 10 minutes, and would send me a text every time it did, with additional limits per hour/day/etc.

 

The auto restart of services shows the mindset of the systemd developers. Us old Unix admins want to find the problem, fix it, then start the service ourself. Systemd tries to be "easy" and basically 'reboots' the service. Its Windows oriented thinking!

 

Your constant use of personal attacks shows us you are frustrated because you have nothing relevant to contribute. Please stop calling everyone liars. Its not helping your argument.

 

As for logs, I don't understand why you pretend its not an issue when you can just read the bug report that the logs get corrupt. And how compatible is all this with syslog? I want all my logs on one machine and when something goes dead, I read it on the log server. Does journalctl filter by machine? Or can systemd even handle syslog content from another machine without sending it through syslog?

 

But I can install another system log to get the features I want ... wait ... Why would I switch to systemd which tries to take over a service, just to proxy it right back to the service that was supposed to handle it in the first place? You are building a house of cards with your server. You say systemd is modular, but your definition is different than mine. In my book, modular means that when my SATA drive dies, I can replace it with another from ANY vendor. Systemd is locking out the alternatives and so we can't easily replace those modules. Thus, its NOT modular, but maybe sectional. It does not play nice with others and so it will be punished with exile.

 

Again, there is no benefit to using systemd, just stuff getting in my way. You talk of negligible latencies ... but what do I get in return for the latency? TROUBLE! Just dump systemd and use a real syslog.

 

When I hear systemd, I think of that Taylor Swift song ... "I knew you were trouble when you walked in ..."

 

 

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop. There are no lies nor exaggerations, just relations of personal experience ... from highly experienced people no less. For example, I'm not a moron and I can make GDM stop respawning! SO, instead of insinuating that I'm too dumb to make it stop, I obviously had some other point I was making.

...

Your constant use of personal attacks shows us you are frustrated because you have nothing relevant to contribute. Please stop calling everyone liars. Its not helping your argument.

 

But I contributed a repo for anyone that wants to try systemd and keep using funtoo, code not just rants, so does your argument stand?(I know it's outdated, but I didn't compromised to keep it working, and actually left a script for automatic sync with the changes to the funto overlay for the curious enough, I also plan to get some time to make the changes to epro to read profiles from overlays, this could not only be useful for systemd, but for other type of profiles), and I wasn't making personal attacks nor implying you were stupid(maybe stubborn), at least it was not my intention I was calling a lie a lie, no matter the person who said it, specifically the arguments "Bootctl is a replacement for grub" its a bootlader no more we have several around not only grub, and  "You have to reboot as much as windows" or  "Faster boots for more reboots" I'd like to actually put this to test (the longest uptime I can get)with the version of RHEL7, but power outages are quite frequent where I'm right now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I contributed a repo for anyone that wants to try systemd and keep using funtoo, code not just rants, so does your argument stand?(I know it's outdated, but I didn't compromised to keep it working, and actually left a script for automatic sync with the changes to the funto overlay for the curious enough, I also plan to get some time to make the changes to epro to read profiles from overlays, this could not only be useful for systemd, but for other type of profiles), and I wasn't making personal attacks nor implying you were stupid(maybe stubborn), at least it was not my intention I was calling a lie a lie, no matter the person who said it, specifically the arguments "Bootctl is a replacement for grub" its a bootlader no more we have several around not only grub, and "You have to reboot as much as windows" or "Faster boots for more reboots" I'd like to actually put this to test (the longest uptime I can get)with the version of RHEL7, but power outages are quite frequent where I'm right now.

 

 

Perhaps you don't see the horrible irony of priding yourself on giving us the ability to run systemd in funtoo after we've told you how much we hate it, despise it, and think its a spreading virus ... and you want an award for spreading it to funtoo?

 

Think about that. Don't expect a thank you!

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And FYI, comparing the init logic and saying its only 2K lines and sooo small ... its still 1.6MB compared to 37K for funtoo's init. So who's shoveling the BS? That's how many times larger? A few orders of magnitude

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

It's roughly 50x the size cause it's that much better. :D

 

I guess the obvious point to make is........

 

Dude....this is Funtoo. Go find another forum to troll your jibberish to. Seriously.....Funtoo man. FUNTOO!

 

One of the primary reasons people come to Funtoo is.....NO SYSTEMD!!!!!!!!

 

Please go peddle this somewhere else. I'm confident the MAJORITY of Funtoo users do not want, need or care for systemd and MOSTLY not for what it does or doesn't do but because of how it goes against EVERYTHING Linux is fundamentally meant to be.....SIMPLE...and do ONE THING....and do it WELL.

 

You of course can say whatever you want like I can. Freedom of speech. It's just this is really the wrong forum/website/place to be promoting shitdomD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And FYI, comparing the init logic and saying its only 2K lines and sooo small ... its still 1.6MB compared to 37K for funtoo's init. So who's shoveling the BS? That's how many times larger? A few orders of magnitude

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

 

 

If you actually look at the code main.c(the systemd program PID1, the file that contains it ) Is ~2k lines[1]( I know sysvinit's init.c  in the end is smaller and doesn't have as many includes, but the logic of how the init works is still less than 2k lines of code not a big monolithic thing)

 

My point is that many times the argument made abut systemd doing a lot of stuff , makes it seem as if they just went an shoved every function they could have came up with into PID1, I know it is also an exaggeration but  consider somene new to linux who is just trying to informe themseleves about this systemd and init stuff and looking threads and has not much Idea about programming, read these stuff and start to have misconceptions that will only make it harder to really inform themeselves. I have actually looked into what makes the systemd binary singicantly bigger but let's not waste our time any more, I'm sure the both of us have better code to spend it on.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you don't see the horrible irony of priding yourself on giving us the ability to run systemd in funtoo after we've told you how much we hate it, despise it, and think its a spreading virus ... and you want an award for spreading it to funtoo?

 

Think about that. Don't expect a thank you!

 

More about me at https://eddon.systems

 

Speak for yourself, It has got several clones.

Even a bug report I have to look into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's roughly 50x the size cause it's that much better. :D

 

I guess the obvious point to make is........

 

Dude....this is Funtoo. Go find another forum to troll your jibberish to. Seriously.....Funtoo man. FUNTOO!

 

One of the primary reasons people come to Funtoo is.....NO SYSTEMD!!!!!!!!

 

Please go peddle this somewhere else. I'm confident the MAJORITY of Funtoo users do not want, need or care for systemd and MOSTLY not for what it does or doesn't do but because of how it goes against EVERYTHING Linux is fundamentally meant to be.....SIMPLE...and do ONE THING....and do it WELL.

 

You of course can say whatever you want like I can. Freedom of speech. It's just this is really the wrong forum/website/place to be promoting shitdomD.

 

It's open source, and I can do as I like, and have done, actually look at the repo and then judge, I made the effort to make it not invade funtoo suggesting not asking about systemd here and making bug reports about systemd to me, knowing it was just losing poeples time in flames like these.

 

PD: this thread was going dead but you reactivated it actually. If you didn't want to see systemd anymore why bothering reactivating a thread months old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×