| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Amity88
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Third planet from the Sun
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:45 am Post subject: SystemDOS contingency plans |
 |
|
A recent discussion on SystemD_OS here in chat got me thinking about this. It's slightly OT from the discussion there, hence this post. With the way things are, I think SystemD might eventually become an essential dependency like the Kernel.
I'm curious as to what you guys are planning to do when that happens? I'm using Slackware on my machine and they don't adapt the new shiny things too quickly. I have Gentoo on the desktop that keeps pestering me to sync it. FreeBSD has bad hardware support (I like how organized they are though).
I think I'll mostly leave my system be and only apply security patches and kernel updates. Not sure how well it'll work though.
_________________
| Ant P. wrote: | | The enterprise distros sell their binaries. Canonical sells their users. |
Also... Be ignorant... Be happy!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 646
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Originally, I planned on forking Gentoo if that were to happen... However, I started a business (non-computer related) that takes up 60-70 hours per week of my time, so I just don't have the capacity to do much right now. I'd probably switch to funtoo or, if all else fails, stop updating my system or switch to slackware.
I'd say I'll bail for BSD, but some of the BSDs are flirting with trying to adapt systemd to BSD too.
RedHat is a blight on the linux community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrbassie
l33t
Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 772
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: |
I'd say I'll bail for BSD, but some of the BSDs are flirting with trying to adapt systemd to BSD too.
RedHat is a blight on the linux community. |
LaunchD? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mir3x
Guru
Joined: 02 Jun 2012
Posts: 455
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First - its not SystemD_OS, but SystemDown.
Second - it will never happen, bc Linux is saved by ... Microsoft 
Best linux apps works on Windows, so those will never depend on Downs.
Wayland seems will work without Downs, so no problem.
Just wait to see Rome fall.
_________________
Sent from Windows |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: SystemDOS contingency plans |
|
|
| Amity88 wrote: | | I'm curious as to what you guys are planning to do when that happens? |
I already use runit as PID 1. I don't trust systemd to do the right thing, but more importantly I don't trust the one person who's pushing it into gentoo - and who does it in secret, never communicating with users in any way. That attitude is exemplary of what's wrong with systemd.
(As an aside I should point out they control *all* init packages in the main tree, so if you don't roll your own or watch upgrades carefully, you're going to have a bad time.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 646
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrbassie wrote: | | saellaven wrote: |
I'd say I'll bail for BSD, but some of the BSDs are flirting with trying to adapt systemd to BSD too.
RedHat is a blight on the linux community. |
LaunchD? |
honestly, I don't remember what it's called... I don't have time to keep up with everything right now*, and my brain is pretty much mush these days.
I don't even have time for simple fixes like making it so lmsensors doesn't require a braindead, systemd-molested version of openrc even though it's just changing the dependency requirement in the ebuild or trying to figure out why I can't roll back to binutils-2.25.1 since 2.26.1 broke compiling palemoon (I get a "C compiler cannot create executables" error on every package I try to compile with 2.25.1 since 2.26.1 hit my system a few weeks ago.
* I know BUS1 was posted, but haven't had time to go through it to start looking at all the stuff that is wrong with this round. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amity88
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Third planet from the Sun
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the BSDs are adopting SystemD, it'll probably be only the init part. I don't think they'll adopt it anytime soon though because they don't like to jump on the latest fad; they put a lot of weight on code correction (supposedly) and most importantly because SysDOS is kinda locked to the Linux kernel.
I think there should be a BSD variant with a Linux kernel. The biggest issue with the BSD is their narrow hardware support.
Slackware is holding it out for now but I don't think Pat can go out of the way to avoid SysDOS (SysDown) if it becomes a major dependency. They don't seem to have much resources.
_________________
| Ant P. wrote: | | The enterprise distros sell their binaries. Canonical sells their users. |
Also... Be ignorant... Be happy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: | | I don't even have time for simple fixes like making it so lmsensors doesn't require a braindead, systemd-molested version of openrc even though it's just changing the dependency requirement in the ebuild or trying to figure out why I can't roll back to binutils-2.25.1 since 2.26.1 broke compiling palemoon (I get a "C compiler cannot create executables" error on every package I try to compile with 2.25.1 since 2.26.1 hit my system a few weeks ago. |
/usr/local/portage/sys-apps/lm_sensors/lm_sensors-3.3.5.ebuild = http://dpaste.com/0QQXA8M Copy metadata.xml and the files directory from portage and run "repoman manifest". I know you know the latter, I included it for the benefit of others. I have about a dozen things that need the same treatment. To make it universal only needs adding the systemd useflag and making six lines conditional based on the flag, but I just ripped the six lines out. Why do the dev's job for him? Enjoy! And thanks for the tip. I'll look into binutils, I'm still running stable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: |
honestly, I don't remember what it's called... I don't have time to keep up with everything right now*, and my brain is pretty much mush these days. |
saellaven, mrbassie, et al ... 'launchd' is OSX's (and Darwin's) init (and only that), it isn't a bsd systemd shim/clone. OpenBSD did some work on four dbus daemons which emulate systemd calls, but I don't think any of the BSD's want to give up init (TrueOS just recently moved to openrc). What I think is happening in BSD land (and I'll admit I haven't followed the discussion that closely, so someone can correct me) is that they (specifically PC-BSD/TrueOS) are ahead of the curve and can foresee a time when keeping up with "the linux desktop" is impractical, and so are developing their own solutions, ie, Lumina (see the section "on the technical side of things"). This is now the default DE for TrueOS, and I would expect that other BSD's will follow suit. BSD users are far less likely to want the kind of "experience" being provided by Gnome/KDE and so the pressure for them to provide it (and its dependencies) is far less than it is on Linux (they also receive far less in the way of oh-my-windows migration). So, I don't think BSD will be caught by the linux ecocide, they might even do well from it. This FreeBSD forum thread has some of the older discussion of the subject, and IMO some of the posters are bang on.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Doctor
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2678
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think there is any major cause for concern. There is no reason for any userland apps to care about the init process. If the worst should happen then OpenRC would move to an overlay and will be well cared for.
In any case, even if they tried to force systemd to be a dependency they couldn't get rid of the previous sane versions or the fact that many Unix-like systems (and Android) still exist without systemd. They would either have to sacrifice the other Unix-like systems or accept that they can't add unnecessary dependencies..
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54237
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor,
Maintaining openrc is the easy bit. I agree, openrc will be well cared for.
The hard bit will be ripping out all the hard dependencies on systemd that will grow in the rest of the ecosystem.
Still, that's been done for Gnome, so the know how already exists.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Doctor wrote: | | I don't think there is any major cause for concern. There is no reason for any userland apps to care about the init process.[...] |
The Doctor ... and gnome, the place of logind in the process (ie, what happens after init), and the direction the systemd "cabal" want to take disributions? (people really need to comprehend the extent of what this document is outlining). Technically speaking you're right, "there is no need", but that isn't the direction we are moving in, and redhats leverage in practically all areas of "userland" makes such that a "reason" isn't needed.
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Maintaining openrc is the easy bit. I agree, openrc will be well cared for. |
Not under current maintainership it won't, they have proved themselves incapable of such "care".
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54237
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khayyam,
Agreed. The move to an overlay implies a new maintainer, or group of maintainers.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic?
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Maybe I'm being overly optimistic? |
Neddy ... lets say that this is the case, there is still the question of what happens to linux once systemd has "standardized the base system" (and implemented/imposed the above roadmap for "how we put together linux systems"), this doesn't bode well for anything attempting to operate outside that "standard", and as we've seen they are completely hostile to it ("[...] we do want to get people to use this combination and no other [...]", etc).
The problem, as I see it, is that this isn't a technical problem, it's a social/political problem, there was too little done to counter systemd/redhat's initial move (it was treated as a minor technical issue that could be resolved by user choice), having taken this tack we are too far down the line to apply much in the way of a counter. I have been saying this for a very long time, and I don't see a way out, it would be too little, too late. I hold gentoo (the community as a whole) directly responsible for this, they needed to act in a way that was political and recognise the problem for what it was, at that time. Anyone who disagreed (ie, those wanting to support systemd) should have been told they need to fork. Had this happened, and there was similar understanding, and backbone, from other distros there would have at least been something of a split, and the existence of that split (in visibility, etc) may have had knock on effects (ie, caused systemd to have some pause for thought), but as things stand it still doesn't seem that people are clear as to what happened, its meaning, etc.
I have little doubt that I will need to look elsewhere for an OS at some point in the not too distant future, linux, and gentoo, simply doesn't live up to its claims ("user driven", "for the community", etc) nor its history. The upside is that everyone knows that it's always been about the users (and the labour they contribute) so the move to more conducive pastures will effect what sort of OS (and community) linux/gentoo will become, and what happens elsewhere after ;)
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3345
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"De facto" software packages have been forked before. And that gives me hope.
There was a systemd fork that I was very keen to try out. I hope there will be more.
Let's not forget:- XFree86 was forked
- We have two (or more) alternatives to the whole X windowing system implementation
Back then I thought that we were stuck with X and framebuffer hacks forever.
It is, however, sad to see Gnome ,for example, depend solely on systemd.
I wonder how much would it take to implement (from scratch) a (bloated?) init system that would use the same api (and all that) as systemd so that one could almost simply just replace systemd.
EDIT: typofixing
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
Last edited by Zucca on Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zucca wrote: | | "De facto" software packages have been forked before. And that gives me hope. |
Zucca ... that only works if those software packages are offering the same functionality, if they do not then they can't be used in place of one another. When things are "tightly integrated" (which is the systemd model of how things should be) then forking doesn't mean much (your simply engineering the same mistakes under another name). The point here is to what degree an "init system" (which systemd clearly isn't) "does one thing" and so can be replaced with some other init system. To repeat what the Doctor stated above, there is "no reason for any userland apps to care about the init" in use, but that isn't the case with systemd, because its clearly not an init system, it is an attempt to replace flexible, interchangeable, "components", with a monolith (and that monolith is the expected "standard base system" that any layer above requires due to further "tight integration").
| Zucca wrote: | | I wonder how much would it take to implement (from scratch) a (bloated?) init system that would use the same api (and all that) as systemd so that one could almost semplessly just replace systemd. |
systemd doesn't have a stable api, it changes, so any attempt at keeping in step with it would likely be a futile exercise.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Doctor
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2678
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | The hard bit will be ripping out all the hard dependencies on systemd that will grow in the rest of the ecosystem.
Still, that's been done for Gnome, so the know how already exists. |
Agreed that they will try, but with choices as diverse as the Unix-like ecosystem replacing those pieces should remain fairly easy. We have seen that with gnome as well. Personally, I've fallen for i3 in a big way. | khayyam wrote: | | NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Maintaining openrc is the easy bit. I agree, openrc will be well cared for. |
Not under current maintainership it won't, they have proved themselves incapable of such "care". |
That is what this solves: | package.mask wrote: | >=sys-apps/openrc-0.18
>=sys-apps/lm_sensors-3.4.0_p20160725
|
As for lm_sensors, if it ant broke why fix it?
Also, last I heard server admins where complaining about systemd and sticking with older releases that didn't use it. When your paying customers don't want your product you have a problem. And we all know what happens when you annoy a sysadmin.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Doctor wrote: | That is what this solves:
| package.mask: | >=sys-apps/openrc-0.18
>=sys-apps/lm_sensors-3.4.0_p20160725 |
|
Doc ... did that some years back ;)
| grep openrc /etc/portage/package.mask/i686.package.mask: | # mask openrc poo-poo
>=sys-apps/openrc-0.13.7 |
Something changed recently (possibly util-linux, e2fsprogs, or coreutils) that broke the sysfs runlevel, so I'm not sure what I'm gonna do ITR, probably something drastic (like s6-rc).
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3345
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Linus Torvalds wrote: | | I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are details, not big issues. |
I'll admit - I'd be much happier with systemd if the logs were NOT binary.
I wonder how all the kernel devs think about systemd now? Has the attitude changed over few years?
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amity88
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Third planet from the Sun
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have used SystemD briefly in the past when it was just an init and logger system and I prefer the regular text logs over the binary ones but I didn't particularly hate SystemD. Khayyam has already mentioned all the reasons why I'm worried. With sufficient complexity/rapidly-changing code and overall lack of proper documentation, it would be pretty difficult to make an alternative after they've 'infected' everything. This would be more like developing Wine to mimic Windows rather than like forking Gnome
I mean come on, they're developing an obscure system that manages all your interaction with the kernel. They aggressively push it to people who don't want it and they try to actively prevent alternatives. There are a lot of red flags there.
Non-Linux alternatives don't work too well, for me atleast. BSDs don't support all the parts in my system and I've heard that they have problems with hibernate/suspend (which they won't fix). I also don't think they'll speed up development soon either cause of their excessively free license.
_________________
| Ant P. wrote: | | The enterprise distros sell their binaries. Canonical sells their users. |
Also... Be ignorant... Be happy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zucca wrote: | | I wonder how all the kernel devs think about systemd now? Has the attitude changed over few years? |
Zucca ... google/duckduckgo should be able to answer that, ie Christopher Barry, you might also search for Alan Cox, Ted T'so, Karl Auerbach, Peter da Silva, Rob Landley, Rich Felker, Martin Pool, and Mark Atwood, all of whom have been critical (and consitute the now famous "vocal minority", haha).
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
augustin
Guru
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 318
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mir3x wrote: | First - its not SystemD_OS, but SystemDown.
Wayland seems will work without Downs, so no problem.
|
Can you say more?
I still don't quite understand the extent of wayland's dependency on systemd, beside logind.
I don't even understand how wayland is supposed to be better than kwin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Doctor
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2678
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| augustin wrote: | | mir3x wrote: | First - its not SystemD_OS, but SystemDown.
Wayland seems will work without Downs, so no problem.
|
Can you say more?
I still don't quite understand the extent of wayland's dependency on systemd, beside logind.
I don't even understand how wayland is supposed to be better than kwin. |
Wayland isn't in the same class as kwin at all.
Wayland is an Xorg server replacement. I don't believe there is any hard dependency on systemd. Basically, some devs got fed up with the feature creep and messy code of xorg and decided a new project could do those things by design. We'll know if they are right in a few years. The project is still missing major functionality.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8936
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Doctor wrote: | | augustin wrote: | | I don't even understand how wayland is supposed to be better than kwin. |
Wayland isn't in the same class as kwin at all. |
In fact, kwin acts as a wayland compositor. It is an implementation of the protocol - there is no such thing as a wayland server.
| The Doctor wrote: | | We'll know if they are right in a few years. The project is still missing major functionality. |
It's enough for Fedora to ship it as default, apparently. Also KDE developers are already able to use it productively (of sorts) with Plasma-5.9 expected to be user consumable.
And last but not least, it is possible to start a Plasma Wayland session using openrc, not systemd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | It's enough for Fedora to ship it as default, apparently. |
If fedora wants it, I don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
