Archlinux is moving to systemd

falconindy · 2012-10-20 14:45:23

It'd make more sense for someone to maintain that themselves:

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=52958

I'm nuking the systemd-arch-units package

Awebb · 2012-10-20 18:38:06

scar wrote:

OK, maybe it looks stupid, but after all it is ARCH...
You have surely noticed, that as systemd processes at boot, some green dots/markers appear.
COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE THEM BLUE???

It seems like you weren't present the day some Arch users decided, that having an Arch logo per CPU on the boot screen instead of a Tux is so not-vanilla, that it had to be changed. It was then decided to drop the Arch logo, because a chain of people claimed, that they didn't see the thing anymore anyway. From that day until days later, I was the saddest Arch user on earth, because I had to look at that penguin, instead of the Arch logo. So, please, I'd rather have green dots than no dots at all.

kinleyd · 2012-10-21 05:25:00

Being an Arch newbie, I am new to this evident schism in the community over systemd. In particular, I was quite perplexed by a comment made by someone about how Arch was finished because it's becoming Windows. And then I found this comment "The syntax is inspired by XDG Desktop Entry Specification .desktop files, which are in turn inspired by Microsoft Windows .ini files."[1] This got me a little worried because I'm trying the heck to stay as far away from Windows as possible! Having lived for some time with 5 minute boot and shutdown periods on my WinXP box, you will understand my paranoia about Windows. Fortunately, it seems the inspiration is only from the syntax (though I wish even that weren't so) and the performance of systemd is stellar. I'm not qualified enough to judge on some of the other arguments against systemd, but I figure that in the end things shake themselves out quite well. It'll be interesting to see how things go as its roll out continues.

[1] http://www.freedesktop.org/software/sys … .unit.html

Last edited by kinleyd (2012-10-21 05:29:17)

Awebb · 2012-10-21 06:58:31

kinleyd, this is like saying, that the Mexicans are bad people, because the Mayans sacraficed humans. Step away from reading comments and have your own look at those things. Look at the config files and decide for yourself, whether you feel comfortable with it.

Jristz · 2012-10-21 07:48:59

I a systemd and I say the only think that I dislike of this is the apparently monolitic design, all in one
I like how nabage daemons now renames to services (?) and the modules-load
At the begin the modules handing is tedious/hard but a long as you have more modules for load it become more easy to separate for functionality in archives (one archive for all wifi-related, other for virtualbox and so...) but I dislike the fact that "eat" many others thinks (journal, polkit/consolekit remplacenments)
I like the journal but dislike the fact that I never can see it in other than a systemd system

Probably if systemd are more portable and modular and the developer use a nick (from the begining of the all) inplace of they name re complains are lees than now

65kid · 2012-10-21 11:41:29

kinleyd wrote:

Being an Arch newbie, I am new to this evident schism in the community over systemd. In particular, I was quite perplexed by a comment made by someone about how Arch was finished because it's becoming Windows. And then I found this comment "The syntax is inspired by XDG Desktop Entry Specification .desktop files, which are in turn inspired by Microsoft Windows .ini files."[1] This got me a little worried because I'm trying the heck to stay as far away from Windows as possible! Having lived for some time with 5 minute boot and shutdown periods on my WinXP box, you will understand my paranoia about Windows. Fortunately, it seems the inspiration is only from the syntax (though I wish even that weren't so) and the performance of systemd is stellar. I'm not qualified enough to judge on some of the other arguments against systemd, but I figure that in the end things shake themselves out quite well. It'll be interesting to see how things go as its roll out continues.
[1] http://www.freedesktop.org/software/sys … .unit.html

The .ini syntax makes perfect sense. Just because Microsoft was the first one to use it that doesn't mean it is bad. There are also a lot of other daemons using this syntax. Samba, rsyncd and mysqld come to mind...

Allan · 2012-10-21 12:21:29

65kid wrote:

The .ini syntax makes perfect sense. Just because Microsoft was the first one to use it that doesn't mean it is bad. There are also a lot of other daemons using this syntax. Samba, rsyncd and mysqld come to mind...

pacman....

yaffare · 2012-10-21 13:35:16

What I dislike about systemd is the name of the commands and format of the output. The commands are too long and not got to memorize. rc.d list => systemctl -t service list-unit-files | grep -v static
Also rc.d list is just cleaner output, in systemd you always have to grab a cup of coffee and start searching what you are looking for.
Even systemctl itself is too long to just say "hey those commands are so good, I can use the upstream ones"

All those problems can be solved by wrapper-scripts and alias but would be nice if upstream would think in that direction and provide more options for user-friendly default usage and output.

By the way anyone knows good wrapper-scripts, like cloning the rc.d list output?

Awebb · 2012-10-21 14:41:26

yaffare wrote:

By the way anyone knows good wrapper-scripts, like cloning the rc.d list output?

:-)

alias rc.d="systemctl -t service list-unit-files | grep -v static"

Meyithi · 2012-10-21 15:47:33

Awebb wrote:

yaffare wrote:
By the way anyone knows good wrapper-scripts, like cloning the rc.d list output?
:-)
alias rc.d="systemctl -t service list-unit-files | grep -v static"

Yup it's pretty simple to grep what you need from systemctl, I used to use rc.d list -s a lot so my equivalent is

alias lss='systemctl -t service list-unit-files | grep enabled'

ngoonee · 2012-10-21 23:47:33

Allan wrote:

65kid wrote:
The .ini syntax makes perfect sense. Just because Microsoft was the first one to use it that doesn't mean it is bad. There are also a lot of other daemons using this syntax. Samba, rsyncd and mysqld come to mind...
pacman....

Hey, you included a new daemon-mode for pacman? =p

falconindy · 2012-10-22 00:05:25

Ah yes, we haven't mentioned the new pacmand for 4.1. Still pretty hush hush, but I'm excited about it...

Trilby · 2012-10-22 00:52:21

I hear I runs in the background and breaks things, while sending random messages to the log saying the system sucks.

Leonid.I · 2012-10-22 01:53:46

yaffare wrote:

What I dislike about systemd is the name of the commands and format of the output. The commands are too long and not got to memorize. rc.d list => systemctl -t service list-unit-files | grep -v static
Also rc.d list is just cleaner output, in systemd you always have to grab a cup of coffee and start searching what you are looking for.
Even systemctl itself is too long to just say "hey those commands are so good, I can use the upstream ones"

Or, install opensuse/fedora with a working systemd setup and learn how things work. This is where standartization helps. Also, you do know about systmctl bash auto-completion, right?

yaffare wrote:

All those problems can be solved by wrapper-scripts and alias but would be nice if upstream would think in that direction and provide more options for user-friendly default usage and output.
By the way anyone knows good wrapper-scripts, like cloning the rc.d list output?

kinleyd · 2012-10-22 04:41:27

:) Thanks for the responses guys. Of course, the operative part of my comment was the bit about how far I was trying to run from Windows boot/shutdown time. I still shudder at the time I let waste, waiting on Windows.

I did use Ubuntu for many years after that, but the cruft starting building there as well. I'm now really enjoying Arch.

yaffare · 2012-10-22 07:55:03

just in case anybody interested, I submitted a script in Community Contributions
systemd shell wrapper script - cloning rc.d output

brain0 · 2012-10-22 11:29:54

falconindy wrote:

Ah yes, we haven't mentioned the new pacmand for 4.1. Still pretty hush hush, but I'm excited about it...

But I thought pacmanctl wasn't ready yet!

drobole · 2012-10-22 14:18:29

OMFG!

Booting arch now is absurd, it takes about a split second!

ngoonee · 2012-10-23 00:10:58

brain0 wrote:

falconindy wrote:
Ah yes, we haven't mentioned the new pacmand for 4.1. Still pretty hush hush, but I'm excited about it...
But I thought pacmanctl wasn't ready yet!

Those minor details can surely wait till we after the RC. The policy is to release early, release often, and break much, after all. Arch users would surely be expected to know the right dbus syntax without pacmanctl to help them.

Awebb · 2012-10-23 06:11:23

ngoonee wrote:

brain0 wrote:
falconindy wrote:
Ah yes, we haven't mentioned the new pacmand for 4.1. Still pretty hush hush, but I'm excited about it...
But I thought pacmanctl wasn't ready yet!
Those minor details can surely wait till we after the RC. The policy is to release early, release often, and break much, after all. Arch users would surely be expected to know the right dbus syntax without pacmanctl to help them.

Please provide an rc script as well, systemd is only the alternative.

ifaigios · 2012-10-23 20:18:48

Back to topic:

Till now, syslog-ng and consolekit are gone from my system (replaced by systemd-journald and systemd-logind respectively). According to Tom, upower currently uses systemd-sleep for suspend/hibernate, but still depends on pm-utils for pm-powersave. Are there plans and/or a specific timeframe by which this functionality will be offered by systemd, so that we can get rid of pm-utils at last?

Last edited by ifaigios (2012-10-23 20:19:20)

tomegun · 2012-10-23 20:23:45

@ifaigios: consensus seems to be that pm-powersave should just go away. So it depends on upower upstream I guess. We could try submitting a patch removing the functionality, and see what happens.

incassum · 2012-10-29 15:26:12

incassum, trying his hand at a second post? I bloody well think it is!

@Most People; I do find it ironic that the Arch, Arch for Buddha's sake, community complains that there is too much text in my post... Anyone else see it?

@Some People; thanks for the nice words.

@Tomegun; Haha, indeed, I am the professional... Something that apparently didn't come across for everyone (but more on that later). As for the rc.conf philosophy versus the systemd philosophy, I believe that to be a matter mostly of taste; for me, "practical complexity" means I have to fiddle around in more places, write more lines, know more intricate details about things that I will only ever use once, and/or deal with more files, and in this regard, systemd is cearly at a disadvantage to rc.conf (or sysvinit).
For me, a simple end-user, systemd is just unecessarily complex, but I'll just have to deal with it (or switch to BSD... I don't want to switch to BSD). However, I do believe it is, to a degree, a matter of "I no longer know how to use my computer", as I (at the time of writing this post) have absolutley no bloody idea even where to begin the work of replacing my rc.conf configuration with/inside systemd, though I will start by reading the wiki, and it will very probably all work out, however... It is most definatley a case of "I can no longer use (or at least configure) my computer).

As for your modprobe example, I'm not entirely sure that I agree; in the "old" rc.conf, I would blacklist my modules just fine, no problems, and I didn't understand jack of what was actually happening or how it worked, I merely knew that an exclamation mark blacklisted a module (up until that last update where support for that was removed, obviously) and that it worked. I didn't need to know anything else, or understand any "abstraction layers" or any such thing. It just worked. Now you're saying I have to learn how modprobe works, and to configure and muck about with that, too? Sounds more complex/complicated to me... From an end-user standpoint.

Again, I want to emphasize that I am speaking from the standpoint of a non-coder, non-hax0r end-user. I am in no way as "1337" or "pr0" as most of the users on here. I am merely a guy who wants to build and use his own little desktop.

As for problems in transitioning... Let's see if I can even boot once I've tried to make all my old daemons run with systemd and edited my syslinux config. I shall try it soon. If I run into problems, I might even make another post on here.

As for the "23 lines of code separated into 2 files and 3 symlinks" is better than "2 lines of code spread over 234 symlinks""-bit, it was intended a a general metaphor for code-and-tech-speak that no-one besides "1337 hax0rz" understand, not as a literal idea. I just meant to say that not everyone understands a coder's argument, because everyone is not a coder.
Also, that is the thing... I will of course read the wiki etcetera (and I'm quite sure it will tell me everything I need to know), but I'm now going to use your point as an example; you say "[...]and you're willing to use "systemctl start/stop daemon.service" rather than adding[...]" this isn't an explanation of how to autostart daemons the way I did by adding them to my DAEMONS array, this is a way of saying "Hey, "rc.d start/stop daemon" has changed into "systemctl start/stop daemon.service"", which isn't something most users often do (or so I imagine, I might of course be very wrong here), as manually starting every single daemon you want post-login would be quite the ridiculously time-consuming and sometimes problematic task. As I said, I'm sure the wiki will teach me how to autostart a daemon, I don't (and shouldn't) need the forums for that, I'm just saying that it's not quite as easy as you make it out to be. And besides, simply adding a daemon entry to the array in rc.conf is/was undoubtedly very un-complicated, simple and easy, isn't/wasn't it?

And, as for the "polarized description of our community"... I didn't describe the community, I described this specific debate.

@Awebb; Haha, I feel the need to reply to you... If for nothing else, then just to say that your prejudice and ridiculous argument (which you admit is an ad-hominem argument) is rather misguided, as I am not a philosophy-student, and I have already published things, thank you. I wrote "major" for lack of a better term (I didn't study in the US, I studied in northern EU), however, I do believe that the proper term would be "Bachelor of Philosophy", by your system. So no, I am not a mere student, I wrote my final paper a long time ago (and I have participated in reasearch projects since then)... Just sayin'.

@Trilby; Oh, come now, bull in-between? Concern troll? Already jumping to personal attacks? Surely you must have better arguments than that... Or, rather, any sort or argument at all, which you currently lack (you stated that there was bull, but you didnt in any way prove it or even attemtpt to prove it). No offence intended. Also, I am not a troll, or rather, I am not trying to be.

However, in response to your argument about things being free; Read Up. I won't pull an entire separate matter of debate in here, however, I do believe that you should read up on the general debate of "we can't complain because it's free". I, admittedly, am one of the people that believes that attitude to be a very dangerous one.

@cfr; Haha, I can understand Awebb... While his argument, as has been established, misses me, he has a point, though I would say that it goes for students of any humanitarian discipline, not just philosophy.

@Everyone; I do believe that ANOKUSA (while annoyingly having an ALLCAPS name) has a point.

[OT]@ANOKUSA; Haha, indeed, though a Bachelor, not a Major (actually, correct me if I'm wrong on this; "Major" means someone who is still studying to become a Bachelor, and the thing he is Majoring in is the thing he is going to get his Bachelor's in after 3 years, right?). However, Formal Logic never was of any interest to me, I find it too hard and too boring, hence why I never got into programming back in the day I guess (for I do understand the comparisions you make, and I agree that all programming languages are, in a way, attempts at formally logical languages and that programming as such is, in a sense, applied formal logic). I work mostly with Theory of Mind, Existentialism and Ethics (both meta and normative), so I work more with brains and essays on why we should all kill ourselves than anything else. Though I wouldn't necessarily say that simplicity is important in an argument; being right/correct is important in an argument.

But yeah, I'm too worthless at Formal Logic to ever become anything even remotely resembling a decent programmer.

@89c51; The video isn't available anymore, apparently...

@caslie; Good to hear that stuff is working out for you, fellow noob, hope it goes all smooth for me too...

@tomegun & ngoone; That is interesting... If everything is so easy and works so well, as at least tomegun wrote earlier, then how could things not be well enough for a new install media? I couldn't for the life of me find a way to write that without sounding like neither an arse nor a troll, so I'll just have to say here that I intend no offence by that question, but rather, that it is a serious question; if I only need to change my syslinux config to systemd, and everything will be fine and work fine, then how come you can't make a pure systemd install media? (Again, no offence intended, and I apologize for sounding "douchy", as I imagine I do).

@Loads of People; wait, pure, un-pure systemd? Damn... Wiki, don't fail me now!

@eNTI; And here, ladies and gentlemen, a perfect example of a Dissenter... However, what he describes is what I fear; that my system will turn unusable/unstable/etcetera. However, even if it does, eNTI, you should learn instead of hate. Be patient. Don't be a Dissenter.

@thestinger & other People; This is one of the things that I, in my first post, tried to make clear... The switch to systemd isn't just a change of a single program and it's single function; it can fuck completly different and unrelated things up; e.g., no longer being able to use "startx", or all of a sudden "not needing" consolekit. I thought we were changing the init-system, not half out of everything... Hmm. This might make me sound like a dissenter. Well, once all of the other, unrelated programs learn to play nice with systemd, and it "matures" as it apparently also needs to do in certain areas (as said by "bwat47"), everything will hopefully work fine.

@Inxsible; ...What is TGN-territory?

@drcouzelis; I have to admit, your wit, it made me laugh, draw a graph, and give it to the chief of staff.
However, there is a point to your jokes, it's not a hoax, it's true, they reflect a real angle of view... That Linux (and Arch) is moving away from it's root, and making singular applications that seem like a hoot, but in truth, are bloated and have a thousand things that they do (even in their youth). This is opposed to the old way, where a single application did only a single thing in a single day.

@caerolle; Hmm, another user for whom it works... Is there a chance I will get out of this alive, after all?

@Everyone; Wow, the discussion turned into politics... Guess my previous post was wrong.

@yaffare; I think you have a very valid point.

Woa. Large post again. Let's hope the "TL;DR"-inquisition doesn't get to me... At least I took a more down-to-earth tone this time around.

Edit: Using smileys is unprofessional.

Last edited by incassum (2012-10-29 15:29:40)

ewaller · 2012-10-29 15:43:40

incassum wrote:

incassum, trying his hand at a second post? I bloody well think it is!...Woa. Large post again. Let's hope the "TL;DR"-inquisition doesn't get to me... At least I took a more down-to-earth tone this time around.

Okay, I read it -- twice. Was there a point in there that I missed? Did you change over to systemd? Is there a question?

scjet · 2012-10-29 17:00:13

I think his main question was, will he have to switch to BSD just to get away from systemd ?, (yes), but maybe I'm only guessing here.
Other than that, I kinda like his semi-accurate-long-winded (finger-pointing) post, arch-discussion wise that is, strictly speaking, of course.

Last edited by scjet (2012-10-29 17:03:10)

Arch Linux

#376 2012-10-20 14:45:23

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#377 2012-10-20 18:38:06

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#378 2012-10-21 05:25:00

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#379 2012-10-21 06:58:31

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#380 2012-10-21 07:48:59

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#381 2012-10-21 11:41:29

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#382 2012-10-21 12:21:29

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#383 2012-10-21 13:35:16

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#384 2012-10-21 14:41:26

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#385 2012-10-21 15:47:33

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#386 2012-10-21 23:47:33

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#387 2012-10-22 00:05:25

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#388 2012-10-22 00:52:21

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#389 2012-10-22 01:53:46

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#390 2012-10-22 04:41:27

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#391 2012-10-22 07:55:03

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#392 2012-10-22 11:29:54

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#393 2012-10-22 14:18:29

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#394 2012-10-23 00:10:58

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#395 2012-10-23 06:11:23

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#396 2012-10-23 20:18:48

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#397 2012-10-23 20:23:45

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#398 2012-10-29 15:26:12

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#399 2012-10-29 15:43:40

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#400 2012-10-29 17:00:13

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Board footer