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, 01:37 PM
mike cloaked
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM, teseo@broletto.org <teseo@broletto.org> 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*?
>

Surely that is not particularly relevant - Windows users are largely
people who are not computer literate (though some fraction of Windows
users are able to do some real hacking but not too many as a fraction
of the total). They are users who got Windows as "the" system when
they bought their laptops/desktops, and are none the wiser that any
alternative exists - on the other hand the majority of linux users are
computer literate, hands-on, people who know that they have choices -
and if they are using a particular flavour of linux and find they
don't like it then they have the knowledge and power to change it and
move to a different distribution - so the majority of Windows users
who find problems will seek a Windows guru to fix their machine ( or
re-install it from scratch, clean up the registry, run "defrag" and
other tools to try and get working until Microsoft eventually delivers
the next great version of Windows ). On the other hand linux users if
they "really" don't like what they see will change their system - if
they don't like Gnome they can use KDE, LXDE, XFCE etc - and if they
are Fedora users and "really" don't like systemd then they can move to
another distribution where systemd is not the default - they have
alternatives -

So logic would suggest that the inferences drawn from large numbers of
linux users is likely to be different from the inference about even
larger numbers of Windows users.

--
mike c
 
Old 08-17-2012, 05:33 PM
Myra Nelson
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:08 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xtfx.me> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Geoff <capsthorne@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
> > Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which
> struck me
> > with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said
> that an
> > advantage of systemd is "... less fragmentation between Linux
> distribution". I
> > have been full time on linux for nearly 13 years now, with the most
> recent five
> > of those on Arch, and for me one of the principal attractions of the OS
> has
> > always been fragmentation between distributions. The recent changes to
> Arch
> > (and I dare say other distros which I do not monitor), all seem to me to
> point
> > in the direction of drab ecumenism - eventually "One distro to rule them
> > all ...." Sooner or later Arch will be distinguished only by its
> excellent
> > rolling release model and the wonderful pacman. Perhaps all this was
> > inevitable. I do not intend anything I say as a criticism of the devs -
> it is
> > their distro and they are entitled to do what they choose with it. But
> it does
> > make me sad.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> take the (unanimous?) sentiments exhibiting by our developers -- and
> *many* developers elsewhere, in a great variety of capacities/niches
> -- as a sign of the good things to come. i fully expect 99%+ will have
> little trouble adjusting, and 98% will at that time agree it was
> clearly the right choice.
>
> initiatives like this are not removing choice -- they are
> consolidating the common bits so developers can get back to writing
> the interesting next-gen stuff instead of spinning wheels or putting
> out fires.
>
> like most things in life, balance is key to good health.
>
> --
>
> C Anthony
>

C. Anthony:

First let me apologize for you winding up with my post twice.

One thing that struck me from one of Tom's replies was "as a computer
scientist". Now my degree is in Geology and I didn't get to finish my MS in
Geophysics, not bragging just trying to set the stage for my discussion. My
programming skills started in the age of punch cards and fortran and I
skipped assembly.

I'm begining to see the disparity in this conversation. On one side we have
users and on the other side, so it seems, the devs are "computer
scientists" trying to bring the next generation to the world. A very worthy
and laudable effort. Please forgive the skeptic in me for saying, for some
of us this isn't our first rodeo and for some of us ( reads: I've been this
way for 60 years and it ain't gonna change any time soon) arguements put
forth about how simple things will become and how much better things will
be have been heard so many times with so little results, we have deaf ears.
The proof is always in the pudding and when that time comes, maybe, I'll
believe it.

The reason for differentiating between users and scientists was this. Too
many people in the world have come to distrust scientists. Just look at the
FUD that's come to this discussion. It's starting to remind me of an old
fashioned lynch mob. Now both sides have dug their feet in and refuse to
listen to each other. That was the point of my original post, to change the
discussion. To attempt to make the discussion meaningful. I would like to
take you to task on one point.

> 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.

This may be accurate, it may be precise, it may make sense, but somewhere
someone thought it was the right way to do things. That does not, nor will
it ever, make it irrelevant. It's the beauty of using Linux. It's flexible,
one can make it work. I know first hand what happens when a scientist
attempts to make someone believe something is irrelevant and it ain't
pretty. It follows my version of Einstein's theory or relativity, "What's
relative to you may or may not be relative to me, or relative to me in the
same way".

I know all those involved are busy with their lives, school, work, etc, and
Arch users are supposed to be savvy enough to figure all this out on their
own. But consider this:

For example, you might feel in your gut that a particular design or
algorithm is the right way to go and that other suggestions aren’t as
effective. Great.

Now prove it.

It could be your expert intuition at work, or maybe it’s just a cognitive
bias or other bug. You need to get some feedback: create a prototype, run
some unit tests, and chart some benchmarks. Do what you need to do to prove
that your idea is a good one, because your intuition may have been wrong.
[94]

Feedback is the key to agile software development for precisely this
reason: software development depends on people. And as we’ve seen here,
people have bugs, too. In short, we’re all nuts—one way or another. Despite
our best intentions, we need to double-check ourselves and each other.

You need unit tests for yourself, too.
Testing Yourself

When you are dead solid convinced of something, ask yourself why. You’re
sure the boss is out to get you. How do you know? Everybody is using Java
for this kind of application. Says who? You’re a great/awful developer.
Compared to whom?

How do you know?

To help get a bigger picture perspective and test your understanding and
mental model, ask yourself something like the following questions:[95]

-

How do you know?
-

Says who?
-

How specifically?
-

How does what I’m doing cause you to...?
-

Compared to what or whom?
-

Does it always happen? Can you think of an exception?
-

What would happen if you did (or didn’t)?
-

What stops you from...?

Is there anything you can actually measure? Get hard numbers on? Any
statistics?[96] What happens when you talk this over with a colleague? How
about a colleague who has a very different viewpoint from your own? Do they
passively agree? Is that a danger sign? Do they violently oppose the idea?
Does that give it credibility? Or not?
From "Pragmatic Thinking and Learning" Refactor Your “Wetware”Andy HuntWe
all have inate hardware bugs and preceptions, and we all need to debug
ourselves.

Myra
--
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
 
Old 08-17-2012, 07:07 PM
mike cloaked
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM, mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
>> of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like
>> not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
>> mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the
>
> Thank you for a reasoned posting - one comment here about the issue of
> /usr on a separate partition - if you put /usr on a separate partition
> and then made a bind mount to / would that not work? I have not tried
> it though!
>
> I have been doing this for /home which is a directory /opt/home and
> /opt is a separate partition - I then bind mount it to /home as a
> directory in the root partition. It has never given a problem so I
> wondered if the analogous technique might work for /usr too?
>

Actually the answer to the /usr partition question seems to already be
in the arch wiki at
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd#Arch_integration

"Warning: /usr must be mounted and available at bootup (this is not
particular to systemd). If your /usr is on a separate partition, you
will need to make accommodations to mount it from the initramfs and
unmount it from a pivoted root on shutdown. See the mkinitcpio wiki
page and freedesktop.org#separate-usr-is-broken"

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mkinitcpio#.2Fusr_as_a_separate_partition
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken

I should have read up on this before my previous post!

--
mike c
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:13 PM
Kyle
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

I made the move to systemd on my flash drive install 2 days ago, and I
have to say I am impressed. The only extra thing I needed to do was to
write a unit file for espeakup, since there isn't yet a unit in the
package or in systemd-arch-units. Writing the new .service file was
extremely quick and painless, and worked the very first time I rebooted
after enabling it. I didn't think it would be possible to make a very
old computer with USB 1.1 boot or shutdown any faster, but systemd
certainly made it happen with a minimum amount of effort, and everything
works as well or better than it did before the migration. I also like
the ease of use and configuration of systemd units and the intuitive
layout of the files and directories. I also found the systemctl and
journalctl commands to be very intuitive and easy to use. I only have to
remember to include the .service suffix when enabling or disabling a
service, as this process requires the complete unit name rather than
just the name of the service, unlike starting, stopping, etc. Although
there is always room for improvement in any software, systemd has come
quite a long way in a relatively short amount of time, and continues to
improve quickly. I would like to thank the systemd developers for their
hard work, and the Arch developers for seeing systemd as a viable
alternative to sysvinit and other aging and/or fragmented parts of a
Linux system. Add me to the list of happy systemd users.

~Kyle
 
Old 08-18-2012, 01:09 AM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd#Arch_integration

> "Warning: /usr must be mounted and available at bootup (this is not
> particular to systemd). If your /usr is on a separate partition, you
> will need to make accommodations to mount it from the initramfs and
> unmount it from a pivoted root on shutdown. See the mkinitcpio wiki
> page and freedesktop.org#separate-usr-is-broken"

> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mkinitcpio#.2Fusr_as_a_separate_partition
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken

The link actually says this has nothing to do with systemd but I think
that's lies and the arch post is correct in that it's not just systemd.

> I should have read up on this before my previous post!

Aside from most of the pro points being incorrect like actually
widening the difference between unixes (solaris being a minority), there
are things they have overlooked too.

__________________________________________________ _______________________

"we now just expect /usr to be pre-mounted from inside the initramfs, to
be available before 'init' starts"
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Well you used to execute /sbin/init and rc scripts after mounting /. so
what's the real reason that hasn't been bothered to be mentioned with
lennart pointing back to the thread that doesn't mention it.

Also Lennart says

__________________________________________________ _______________________

"Now you only have to pull out your rescue CD, if /boot is corrupted
and not if / is corrupted."
__________________________________________________ _______________________

Not true, you could always fix some errors but lots of things can not
be fixed this way else the kernel/initramfs would be or as large as the
filesystem which equates to more ignorance of busybox and embedded.

On OpenBSD the critical files are on / and so is the kernel. /usr holds
the well audited and so files that almost never need
updating. /usr/local holds packages so you can update them whilst
reducing the risk of trojaning login or damaging critical filesystems
for example. You can easily update and backup the root filesystem too.

/usr on Linux is far far more likely to have problems mounting as it
is large and heavily used so actually you have made Linux less reliable
not more reliable (as lennart argues) just like systemd does to. If it
has all these functional bugs that seem to still be appearing and is so
difficult to review the code then the only people that are likely to
find the security bugs are the criminals and those getting paid many
more times than Google pay for bugs in chrome not to mention that
those who can find those bugs will not be running and so auditing
systemd in any case.

The simplicity of controlling the init scripts was a major factor in my
choice of arch. The fast updates and simple and secure default stance
led me to believe Arch held security highly and which I no longer
believe. So as soon as my free time permits (which unfortunately may be
a while). I shall have to join Baho in his quest for another OS. The
decision to move to systemd actually has very little to do directly with
my decision but the manner of the decision process and unbalanced
summing up in arch is far more worrying and much more one sided than the
summary made by RedHat devs. There may be more developer contention and
balance than was dared to be made public, but it is unclear to me. A
couple of devs murmured dislike of systemd, a couple made rediculous
comments (not you Tom, you got hot headed and a little offensive at
times but I understood why) but most devs reacted to lets move to
systemd now for an easy life and an easy life has nothing to do with
what I strive to achieve.

Suggestion for distros without systemd and which hold security or code
correctness and little enabled by default are welcome.


Tom: Seccomp is only really there for a very particular usage by Google
in Chrome. It is far too large grained to add security to daemons.

Kc

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________

'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)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 
Old 08-18-2012, 02:06 AM
Kyle
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

+According to Leon Feng:

Systemd support shortform service name now. See the wiki page:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd#Using_Units



For now, this only seems to work for starting, stopping and reloading
services. Unfortunately it doesn't yet seem to work for enabling or
disabling them. If I try for example


sudo systemctl enable netcfg@Kyle

or

sudo systemctl disable netcfg@Kyle

I receive the following error:

Failed to issue method call: Invalid argument

If I use the .service suffix, it works as expected.

sudo systemctl start netcfg@Kyle

and

systemctl stop netcfg@Kyle

also work as expected. Maybe it's a bug, but for now, I'll just remember
the .service suffix unless I find out this behaviour is indeed abnormal.
Thanks for the link. The wiki page is well written and helped prevent
some potentially major headaches.

~Kyle
 
Old 08-18-2012, 02:40 AM
Leon Feng
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

2012/8/18 Kyle <kyle@gmx.ca>:
> I made the move to systemd on my flash drive install 2 days ago, and I have
> to say I am impressed. The only extra thing I needed to do was to write a
> unit file for espeakup, since there isn't yet a unit in the package or in
> systemd-arch-units. Writing the new .service file was extremely quick and
> painless, and worked the very first time I rebooted after enabling it. I
> didn't think it would be possible to make a very old computer with USB 1.1
> boot or shutdown any faster, but systemd certainly made it happen with a
> minimum amount of effort, and everything works as well or better than it did
> before the migration. I also like the ease of use and configuration of
> systemd units and the intuitive layout of the files and directories. I also
> found the systemctl and journalctl commands to be very intuitive and easy to
> use. I only have to remember to include the .service suffix when enabling or
> disabling a service, as this process requires the complete unit name rather
> than just the name of the service, unlike starting, stopping, etc. Although
> there is always room for improvement in any software, systemd has come quite
> a long way in a relatively short amount of time, and continues to improve
> quickly. I would like to thank the systemd developers for their hard work,
> and the Arch developers for seeing systemd as a viable alternative to
> sysvinit and other aging and/or fragmented parts of a Linux system. Add me
> to the list of happy systemd users.

Systemd support shortform service name now. See the wiki page:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd#Using_Units

> ~Kyle
 
Old 08-18-2012, 07:37 AM
Rmy Oudompheng
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On 2012/8/17 Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Nicholas MIller <nick.kyky@gmail.com>wrote:
>> That seems to be one of the more well thought out (not pro), responces to
>> systemd,
>>
>
> Thank you. My intent was to start an intelligent discussion. The rants and
> raves are going no where. I'm not necessarily against systemd, just the
> PTB's upstream dictating how Linux is and can be used. To me Linux is about
> choice, unlike the OS I used for so many years. My other goal is to get the
> devs involved to think about how to help the Arch community in general. If
> Arch is what you make of it, don't take that choice away.

The tools dictate how to use the system. Archlinux has never dictated
which tools to use, and the "move to systemd" is not more a dictation
about which tool to use than anything before. Arch is still what you
make of it, some tools just don't have alternatives and you are
welcome to develop one of them to help that choice.

Nobody is "removing an alternative" here, it's just cleaning up the
dead, the community is free to revive them.
I don't see how this discussion is different from the other ones. Most
of the discussions are based on the assumption that we currently have
working boot scripts in bash. This one is too.

Rmy.
 
Old 08-19-2012, 05:41 PM
Myra Nelson
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Rmy Oudompheng
<remyoudompheng@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 2012/8/17 Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Nicholas MIller <nick.kyky@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >> That seems to be one of the more well thought out (not pro), responces
> to
> >> systemd,
> >>
> >
> > Thank you. My intent was to start an intelligent discussion. The rants
> and
> > raves are going no where. I'm not necessarily against systemd, just the
> > PTB's upstream dictating how Linux is and can be used. To me Linux is
> about
> > choice, unlike the OS I used for so many years. My other goal is to get
> the
> > devs involved to think about how to help the Arch community in general.
> If
> > Arch is what you make of it, don't take that choice away.
>
> The tools dictate how to use the system. Archlinux has never dictated
> which tools to use, and the "move to systemd" is not more a dictation
> about which tool to use than anything before. Arch is still what you
> make of it, some tools just don't have alternatives and you are
> welcome to develop one of them to help that choice.
>
> Nobody is "removing an alternative" here, it's just cleaning up the
> dead, the community is free to revive them.
> I don't see how this discussion is different from the other ones. Most
> of the discussions are based on the assumption that we currently have
> working boot scripts in bash. This one is too.
>
> Rmy.
>

Remy:

Culling the herd never hurts and I'm not a firm believer that the current
bash scripts are perfect. My goal was to entice a lower tone, more
rational, not have to sort through all the bull shit conversations. As I
pointed out somewhere earlier, my brain doesn't process information the
same way most do and I get bore quickly sorting through the other posts for
real information. Hard data is true information, information equals power,
and distilled information is the best there is, but trying to sort through
the rants and raves it completely beyond me.

I have to map things out like logic gates:

If xyz then
blah blah
else if jkl
etc
end if

In other words, why oop still eludes me to this day. There are certain
transtions in my transitors that are broken and I need intelligent
responses like yours, Tom's, and the blog Allan posted to Planet Arch to
wend my way through things.

Sorry if I seemed to have caused offending and extra noise.

Myra



--
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
 
Old 08-20-2012, 12:29 PM
"Stephen E. Baker"
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On 17/08/2012 8:34 AM, Stephen E. Baker wrote:

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.


Some people have been replying off list with suggestions. With some help
on #systemd I added x-systemd.automount to the options on the fstab and
now that file system is working fine.

I've now removed initscripts and sysvinit and everything is working nicely.
I'm not convinced for me that there was much real advantage to the move,
but there doesn't seem to be any disadvantage either.

Stephen E. Baker
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:54 AM.

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