FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:51 AM
Leon Feng
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

2012/8/17 mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
>> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
>> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
>> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
>> last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free
>> for all continues. I think a comment on Allan's blog post might illustrate
>
> Here are some stats that are quite useful in terms of the number of
> users of systemd:
>
> At http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
>
> Using the "kernel" tab we see that the approximate number of systems
> that have their system details logged using Fedora 16 is over 100,000
> if you total the entries for x86_64 and the i686 and i686 PAE kernels
> most of which are systems using systemd. Given that so many machines
> are currently running systemd it can't be all that bad! This is of
> course only for Fedora but machines are also running systemd in other
> distributions as well.
>
> Speaks volumes really - and again supports the decision that the devs
> have made - with a much larger user base than the straw poll made
> available by another poster on this mailing list.

Maybe there are some misunderstanding to be clear:

Even if Arch support systemd as default, it does not means all Arch
users are force to use systemd. Users prefer current initscripts can
still use it. It is just like the choice between Grub/Grub2/syslinux.

Leon.

>
> --
> mike c
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:57 AM
Fons Adriaensen
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:08:32AM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

> no flexibility is lost by moving to systemd, and really, much more
> gained: wider userbase, wider testbase, simple units to write, simple
> units to read, loosely coupled ordering, implicit dependencies, Grand
> Unified logging capabilities, and of course, much better
> speed/reliability/robustness.

That is probably all true.

But there is one observation in Myra's post which I think is
very much to the point: the fact that 'upstream' (in this case
mainly Redhat), is driving Linux to become 'enterprise-friendly'.
This is also very visible if you read Lennart's blog.

There's in principle nothing wrong with that, unless the way
this is done means that it becomes more difficult for a user
to configure his system differently. Note that the aim in most
enterprises is to take control away from the end user, even if
he's sitting right besides the system. It is inevitable that
anything that enables this goes against the interest of the
individual user.

I'm pretty sure that much of the resistance to systemd (and
some other subsystems) exists because it is seen (and IMHO
not entirely in error) as part of a strategy in that direction.

And it certainly matters to Arch users who by definition are
their own admins, and who want the flexibility without having
to disable, bypass or fight things they don't need and that
get in the way. Having to do that with other distros was what
drove me to Arch.

All this also means that it is futile to attack L.P. personally
(as seems to happen) - he is just a clever and ambitious young
man used as a pawn in a game that is much bigger than he is.

Ciao,

--
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
 
Old 08-17-2012, 10:10 AM
Geoff
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:57:51 +0000
Fons Adriaensen <fons@linuxaudio.org> wrote:

<snip>

+1 to every word. I ran LFS for three years, partly because I wanted to learn
and partly to avoid the issues you mention. I left only because at that point in
my life it was too time-consuming and Arch offered an ideal alternative.

Geoff
 
Old 08-17-2012, 10:18 AM
Geoff
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:08:32 -0500
C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xtfx.me> wrote:

<snip>

>
> the boot process isn't really that interesting (once you
> know/understand it anyway ... if not i encourage you to explor ;-) --
> every distro pretty much does it the same way, but pointlessly
> independent, thus resulting in annoying differences that are
> completely irrelevant to begin with.

Thank you for a measured reply Anthony. I take your points. I have also
watched LP's FOSDEM systemd presentation on Youtube (understanding about 80% of
it), and read most of the links provided by other posters (especially the
internal debate between Red Hat devs). I understand that there are advantages,
but I am left with the lingering impression that systemd is part of a larger
project, - as discussed by Fons Adriaensen in this thread. It bothers me.

Geoff
 
Old 08-17-2012, 11:23 AM
"teseo@broletto.org"
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

Jn

Inviato da HTC

----- Reply message -----
Da: "Jorge Almeida" <jjalmeida@gmail.com>
A: "General Discussion about Arch Linux" <arch-general@archlinux.org>
Oggetto: [arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd
Data: ven, ago 17, 2012 11:48


On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM, mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com> wrote:
> most of which are systems using systemd. Given that so many machines
> are currently running systemd it can't be all that bad! This is of
>
How many machines are currently running Windows*?

Jorge Almeida
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:03 PM
Rodrigo Rivas
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Geoff <capsthorne@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:08:32 -0500
> C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xtfx.me> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > the boot process isn't really that interesting (once you
> > know/understand it anyway ... if not i encourage you to explor ;-) --
> > every distro pretty much does it the same way, but pointlessly
> > independent, thus resulting in annoying differences that are
> > completely irrelevant to begin with.
>
> Thank you for a measured reply Anthony. I take your points. I have also
> watched LP's FOSDEM systemd presentation on Youtube (understanding about
> 80% of
> it), and read most of the links provided by other posters (especially the
> internal debate between Red Hat devs). I understand that there are
> advantages,
> but I am left with the lingering impression that systemd is part of a
> larger
> project, - as discussed by Fons Adriaensen in this thread. It bothers me.
>

"Part of a larger project". Yes, I have the same feeling, but it doesn't
have to be necessarily a bad thing. That would depend, in part, on what the
larger project is. For example, upstart is part of a larger project
(Ubuntu), so is git (Linux). Hey, even GCC is part of a bigger project
(GNU).

Some people fear that if you use it you will be giving something to that
unknown project behind systemd.
But if it takes you where you don't want to go, it can be forked. It has
happened before with bigger projects.

That's the great thing of opensource, you don't have put up with the powers
behind: fork - improve - share.

But for the time being they didn't give me any reason to believe that they
have a hidden agenda or that they are evil, or anything...
--
Rodrigo
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:22 PM
Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:08:32AM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> initiatives like this are not removing choice

... Kinda.

This initiative doesn't remove choice. It is a natural consequence
of the greater linux ecosystem choosing to abandon some choices.

Am convinced that moving to systemd is probably the right thing for
Arch at this point. But let's not get overzealous in the proselyting.
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:34 PM
"Stephen E. Baker"
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On 17/08/2012 5:47 AM, Thomas Rand wrote:


Thank you for starting a thread that (crosses fingers) will stay rant
free & intelligent.

After reading all the who-har in the other's I decided to install
systemd on my lappy & TBH was very pleased with the result. That being
that the install itself was hassle free & the configuration was
bizarrely intuitive & easy, I had a small issue that
lightdm-unity-greeter was not starting, so I made a note of the error
given & checked the .service, .device, .target files & was astounded
to see seriously plain text to the point where I followed through the
process systemd took & worked out the problem reboot & bingo I fixed
it without even looking on the web!
I also decided I should install systemd on my laptop last night. (At a
time when

I didn't actually have much time to work on it, because that's the kind of
guy I am ). I agree that the install itself was very easy, and with
the recent

rc.conf changes there was very little else to configure except to setup the
starting services.

I did hit a couple issues: Arch doesn't ship with units for all the daemons
I use. I was able to copy the mysqld instructions out of the wiki, but
my attempt at getting timidity working on my own failed. (Again,
I suspect I will be able to get it working, but I was doing things quickly.)

The other issue I hit was that it didn't like one of my fstab entries,
for a loop back file system in my home partition that I use to fake
a small drive for one of my old wine games. This error caused it to
boot to a
root console where I could see the file system in error. I haven't yet
tried to

debug the line, but once I commented it out I was able to boot my system.

Stephen E. Baker

[snip]


Again thanks for a sane thread


+1
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:59 PM
Geoff
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:03:17 +0200
Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Some people fear that if you use it you will be giving something to that
> unknown project behind systemd.
> But if it takes you where you don't want to go, it can be forked. It has
> happened before with bigger projects.

<snip>

Yes, but I have the feeling (just my feeling, I can be wrong), that the
epoch when the best and brightest people did fork projects of this kind may be
past, or at least passing. I am not blaming anyone, - the constraints of time /
career are perhaps more difficult to contend with than they were 20 years
ago. Further, the success of linux in fields far removed from my
irrelevant little desktop brings opportunities and problems which may interest
those people more. Times change, but one is allowed to regret some of the
consequences.

Geoff
 
Old 08-17-2012, 01:23 PM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

> But if it takes you where you don't want to go, it can be forked. It has
> happened before with bigger projects.

That's true but no one can do that on a whim and apparently (Redhat
Dev) the code is rediculously hard to follow and review. I believe the
ones who would do that will likely just start from scratch or use an
existing shell based init and are more likely to fork upstart as a
basis with systemd as a reference.


--
__________________________________________________ _____________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org