Where will you go after systemd?

[Moonshine]

If its that easy why are people still forking Debian over it?

Because it's about more than init. It is the entanglement of depends that is the glue that binds systemd to places where is unnecessary except to tie it to the systemd monolith.

Call me shortsighted, if you wish, but as long as it

a) Doesn't touch the userspace
b) Does it's job, often better than it's predecessors

I say it's a good thing. When that becomes different, I'll look for the way out (I have one, as I said earlier). And I doubt that it would be that difficult for any major distros, DEs, etc. to untie themselves from systemd (much quicker, than they are tying themselves to it now), should it become obviously inadequate.

[golinux]

If its that easy why are people still forking Debian over it?

Because it's about more than init. It is the entanglement of depends that is the glue that binds systemd to places where is unnecessary except to tie it to the systemd monolith.

Call me shortsighted, if you wish, but as long as it

a) Doesn't touch the userspace
b) Does it's job, often better than it's predecessors

I say it's a good thing. When that becomes different, I'll look for the way out (I have one, as I said earlier). And I doubt that it would be that difficult for any major distros, DEs, etc. to untie themselves from systemd (much quicker, than they are tying themselves to it now), should it become obviously inadequate.

FYI, systemd is all over userspace via app dependencies and it will only get worse. Also it is not that easy to untangle systemd from a DE because systemd wants to be master of all. Sounds to me like you are are good fit for Debian. (Read that however you will.)

[Moonshine]

FYI, systemd is all over userspace via app dependencies and it will only get worse. Also it is not that easy to untangle systemd from a DE because systemd wants to be master of all. Sounds to me like you are are good fit for Debian. (Read that however you will.)

Sorry, I'm perfectly fine on Slackware without systemd and with all the apps I ever needed. When I get one problem, count me converted to your religion.

[dasein]

Oh, for the love of J. Bob Dobbs, would everyone please stop beating this dead horse?

(That goes double for anyone who thinks systemd is an "init system" or "better" without a specific set of measurable criteria for determining quality.)

As my gesture of thanks to this community, as a small parting gift I've collected a few facts about systemd into a single post. Some may find it informative: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=120652

[Moonshine]

(That goes double for anyone who thinks systemd is an "init system" or "better" without a specific set of measurable criteria for determining quality.)

But in my view, systemd brings nothing but improvements over sysvinit scripts (of which I never was a big fan) - from hugely reduced boot time to much easier and more cogent way to monitor the processes that have started/failed to start during the boot, to more unified and versatile concept of units that allows you to handle startup dependencies in a sane and non-overcomplicated manner. And it even has sysvinit compatibility!

Shorter points:
1. Boot time (objectively twice as fast on my computer, about 7s vs 14s)
2. systemctl and journald are very intuitive and easy to use. (subjective)
3. systemd units and their dependencies are a blessing. (subjective)
4. sysvinit I always found a little messed up and struggled to deal with it. BSD-init is fine. (subjective)

[golinux]

dasein aka Curmudgeon . . . You have always had the ability to cut right to the core of the matter and "Combatting revisionist history" is no exception. Absolutely brilliant!

[JLloyd13]

(That goes double for anyone who thinks systemd is an "init system" or "better" without a specific set of measurable criteria for determining quality.)

But in my view, systemd brings nothing but improvements over sysvinit scripts (of which I never was a big fan) - from hugely reduced boot time to much easier and more cogent way to monitor the processes that have started/failed to start during the boot, to more unified and versatile concept of units that allows you to handle startup dependencies in a sane and non-overcomplicated manner. And it even has sysvinit compatibility!

Shorter points:
1. Boot time (objectively twice as fast on my computer, about 7s vs 14s)
2. systemctl and journald are very intuitive and easy to use. (subjective)
3. systemd units and their dependencies are a blessing. (subjective)
4. sysvinit I always found a little messed up and struggled to deal with it. BSD-init is fine. (subjective)

I haven't noticed better boot times. Then again, I haven't actually timed and I'm running off an SSD.

@dasein- thank you. Not unbiased but you do have some good points there.

[Curmudgeon]

(That goes double for anyone who thinks systemd is an "init system" or "better" without a specific set of measurable criteria for determining quality.)

1. Boot time (objectively twice as fast on my computer, about 7s vs 14s)
2. systemctl and journald are very intuitive and easy to use. (subjective)
3. systemd units and their dependencies are a blessing. (subjective)
4. sysvinit I always found a little messed up and struggled to deal with it. BSD-init is fine. (subjective)
(Emphasis added)

[Moonshine]

And that's why I've involuntarily become systemd-sympathetic.

[golinux]

And that's why I've involuntarily become systemd-sympathetic.

Decisions based in emotion are almost always bad ones. Just observe the consequences of three year olds in a sandbox or hormonal teenagers doing just that.

[twoflowers]

systremd is Windows svchost, not FreeBSD init.
It does not boot faster. In fact on HDD it's slower.
Managing processes via cgroups as done by systemd does not work, just look at the code.
...

[Moonshine]

Ok, I think I'm done here. Helped a few newbies, met a few seemingly adequate and nice people, but this is really too much.

I do wish the fork is completed soon and everyone who want to use systemd-free Debian just goes on and uses it. I highly doubt anything good can be built on prejudice, arrogance and stupid resistance to change, but that's just me. Until then, I'll try to stay away from English-speaking Debian community.

[1of12]

I think you should take less notice of the shit coming your way and just do your own thing. Forums in general have a big asshole population. These are users with time on their hands to pick on other users for no good reason and try to look clever but without posting anything technical.

Just a minor correction: Slackware does not use "BSD init" because there is no such thing. Slackware uses sysvinit with BSD style (rc) scripts. It still uses the sysv init daemon (not any kind of ported *BSD init daemon) and it still uses /etc/inittab and run levels. So with that in mind I'm unsure as to why you prefer it over Debian's sysvinit implementation?

[Moonshine]

I think you should take less notice of the shit coming your way and just do your own thing. Forums in general have a big asshole population. These are users with time on their hands to pick on other users for no good reason and try to look clever but without posting anything technical.

Just a minor correction: Slackware does not use "BSD init" because there is no such thing. Slackware uses sysvinit with BSD style (rc) scripts. It still uses the sysv init daemon (not any kind of ported *BSD init daemon) and it still uses /etc/inittab and run levels. So with that in mind I'm unsure as to why you prefer it over Debian's sysvinit implementation?

No, Slackware doesn't use sysvinit. Slackware has sysvinit compatibility since version 7.0. http://www.slackware.com/config/init.php

From the Slack /etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit



The SystemV style init system places
# start/stop scripts for each runlevel into directories such as
# /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ (for runlevel 3) instead of starting them
# from /etc/rc.d/rc.M. This makes for a lot more init scripts,
# and a more complicated execution path to follow through if
# something goes wrong. For this reason, Slackware has always
# used the traditional BSD style init script layout.
#
# However, many binary packages exist that install SystemV
# init scripts. With rc.sysvinit in place, most well-written
# startup scripts will work. This is primarily intended to
# support commercial software, though, and probably shouldn't
# be considered bug free.

[1of12]

No, Slackware doesn't use sysvinit. Slackware has sysvinit compatibility since version 7.0. http://www.slackware.com/config/init.php

Your research/knowledge is lacking.

Slackware uses the sysvinit daemon, but uses BSD style rc scripts instead of the usual sysvinit scripts.

Or did you think that a *BSD's init uses run levels?