You are not logged in.

#1 2017-01-16 15:37:43

gazj
Member
From: /home/gazj -> /uk/cambs
Registered: 2007-02-09
Posts: 681
Website

Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Hi Guys,

This is the first time I have posted on Arch Forums for 4 years.  I must admit I mostly left Arch and went to Slackware when we lost "rc.conf" and systemd was implemented.  It at the time seemed over complicated and convoluted and a step back in simplicity.  Now 4 years later I would like to get your opinion, not a flame war (that has been done way to many times), just on the things I found as hurdles. 

Is it now simple, is it as easy as editing a text file once was.  Are the tools better?  Can I customize easily as I could with a bash script?  Was I just being a stubborn guy stuck in my ways?  Did I give up what was for many reasons the best Linux distro out there just because of my own pigheadedness to learn something new?

Offline

#2 2017-01-16 15:59:08

Alad
Wiki Admin/IRC Op
From: Bagelstan
Registered: 2014-05-04
Posts: 2,407
Website

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

You could get an answer to those questions by doing some basic research. Posting it here will only lead to the inevitable bikeshed...


Mods are just community members who have the occasionally necessary option to move threads around and edit posts. -- Trilby

Offline

#3 2017-01-16 16:14:56

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

gazj wrote:

Is it now simple, is it as easy as editing a text file once was.

It's not very complicated. There is now 'man archlinux', a one-pager that explains everything.

[17:09][rage2people@normandy ~]$ man archlinux
ARCHLINUX(7)                                                                                                                                                                                                        ARCHLINUX(7)

NAME
       archlinux - basic configuration

SYNOPSIS
       Overview of the basic configuration of Arch Linux.

DESCRIPTION
       Arch Linux exposes the user to the system without hiding any details. This man page gives a brief overview of the configuration files that should be set up on a fresh install.

SYSTEM SERVICES
       System services to be started at boot can be enabled using systemctl enable <name>. To view available services, use systemctl list-unit-files.

HOSTNAME
       The hostname of the machine can be set using hostnamectl set-hostname <hostname>. It will then be written to /etc/hostname.

LOCALIZATION
       Various locales may be enabled in /etc/locale.gen and are generated by locale-gen. The system-wide locale to be used can be configured in /etc/locale.conf. These settings can be overridden on a per-user basis by
       keeping a user-specific locale.conf in $HOME/.config/locale.conf. The user-specific file will take precedence if it exists.

VIRTUAL CONSOLE
       The virtual console is configured in /etc/vconsole.conf. It allows you to set a font and a keyboard layout, among other things. Note that these settings only apply to the console and do not apply if you use X.

TIME
       The local time zone is configured by calling timedatectl set-timezone <Region/City>. A relative symlink is then created from /etc/localtime to the correct zoneinfo file under /usr/share/zoneinfo/. For example,

           /etc/localtime -> ../usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe/Paris

       The real-time clock, which keeps track of time when the computer is off, can be configured to either be in UTC or in local time by calling timedatectl set-local-rtc <false|true>. The default is UTC.

FILE SYSTEMS
       File systems are configured in /etc/fstab, and encryption mappings are configured in /etc/crypttab.

INITRAMFS
       The initramfs is generated by mkinitcpio -p <preset>. The default preset is "linux". The initramfs can be configured in /etc/mkinitcpio.conf and must be regenerated after making configuration changes.

PACKAGE MANAGER
       The package manager, pacman, is configured in /etc/pacman.conf.

BOOT LOADER
       GRUB’s configuration is generated from /etc/default/grub by grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg. Syslinux is configured in /boot/syslinux/syslinux.cfg.

MODULES
       Most modules should be loaded on-demand. Modules to be unconditionally loaded at boot can be specified in /etc/modules-load.d/, and modules to be blacklisted from automatically loading can be configured in
       /etc/modprobe.d/.

SEE ALSO
       systemctl(1), hostnamectl(1), hostname(5), locale.conf(5), vconsole.conf(5), timedatectl(1), timezone(3), hwclock(8), fstab(5), crypttab(5), mkinitcpio(8), pacman(8), pacman.conf(5), grub-mkconfig(8), syslinux(1),
       modules-load.d(5), modprobe.d(5), systemd(1)

AUTHORS
       Written by Tom Gundersen.

                                                                                                           12/06/2016                                                                                               ARCHLINUX(7)
gazj wrote:

Are the tools better?

I initially struggled with systemd and all those tools, but I wouldn't want to go back to the rc.conf anymore. Again, 'man archlinux'.

gazj wrote:

Can I customize easily as I could with a bash script?

Using systemd is as simple as writing a bash script. I never found daemon scripts easy to read or comfortable to handle.

gazj wrote:

Was I just being a stubborn guy stuck in my ways? Did I give up what was for many reasons the best Linux distro out there just because of my own pigheadedness to learn something new?

http://allanmcrae.com/2012/08/are-we-re … rch-linux/

Offline

#4 2017-01-16 16:15:20

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 29,449
Website

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

I will say I was highly skeptical of systemd.  When it was first out it was touted as the solution to so many problems I never had.  It had all these bells and whistles and features that I had no interest in.  I suspected, therefore, that it would be slow, bloated, and complicated.  Quite the opposite is the case.  It is ridiculously fast and easy to use.  Not only is it easy to configure as an "end-user", but creating your own services is far easier than creating your own daemons for initscripts ever seemed to me.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#5 2017-01-16 16:28:48

gazj
Member
From: /home/gazj -> /uk/cambs
Registered: 2007-02-09
Posts: 681
Website

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Well, I really don't want to start any trouble.  I had hoped the bickering would have stopped by now and it would be looked back on as a rather silly.  I take on board what you guys have said.  Trilbys views at the time seem similar to what mine were, so it is nice to see that he has eventually taken to it.

I think I will start with a new install in a VM for now and see how I get on.  I guess the install process has changed (even if it hasn't I probably won't remember it) so I guess I will be digging out the beginners guide.

Anyway I will keep you posted with my progress.

Last edited by gazj (2017-01-16 16:30:29)

Offline

#6 2017-01-16 16:40:11

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 19,740

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

I also was skeptical at first.  The only negative I have is that the journal is kept in binary files rather than text files.


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Offline

#7 2017-01-16 16:56:32

TheChickenMan
Member
From: United States
Registered: 2015-07-25
Posts: 354

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

gazj wrote:

I guess the install process has changed (even if it hasn't I probably won't remember it) so I guess I will be digging out the beginners guide.

Things DO change quickly around here. In fact, the beginner's guide was recently removed in favor of only keeping the shorter installation guide. There was some minor uproar over that too but the new guid "is" cleaner and easier to follow if you're not totally new.

It's hard for me to make a fair comparison about systemd since other than some minor tinkering I learned most of my linux on systems that had systemd already (fedora, centos and arch). I have used some other systems which do not use it though such as gentoo or mint. I think it is generally a good thing.

It feels much easier to write .service files and .timer files. They're in nice neat self-contained files with easy and predictable syntax.

Management is nice too. "systemctl status" provides very nice and helpful output. Typing "systemctl" alone brings up a complete list of all running services and timers and their status. This is very nice to check if something failed to work correctly that you might not know about.


If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.
Niels Bohr

Offline

#8 2017-01-16 16:56:35

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

gazj wrote:

so I guess I will be digging out the beginners guide

Ironically, unlike the system itself, the beginner's guide was merged with the install guide, thrown away and rewritten into a very sleek and simple note and now resembles the long lost rc.conf.

Last edited by Awebb (2017-01-16 16:56:56)

Offline

#9 2017-01-16 17:23:02

eschwartz
Fellow
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 4,097

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

ewaller wrote:

I also was skeptical at first.  The only negative I have is that the journal is kept in binary files rather than text files.

... which of course can also be fixed using syslog-ng/rsyslog. smile


Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Offline

#10 2017-01-16 18:52:53

SubS0
Member
Registered: 2015-02-10
Posts: 37

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

I don't know if my answer can add something new, but here's my feelings of less experienced user.

Personnaly, I’m rater new to Archlinux, as I started to really use it as my daily system just after the systemd switch. I was a bit worried because of the controversy here and there about systemd, but I couldn't really compare to alternatives (my understanding of init and process management was close to zero).
I didn't understand all of the technical points, even asking myself if using it wouldn't make me going against the "unix philosophy" as it is often said by some people (In fact, I know a lot about philosophy...but not the unix one, if there's really one, and I don't care).

After a few years, as the more experienced people said above, systemd is pretty easy to use, almost intuitive, and as every technics, the more you use it, the more you feel confortable with and find it flexible.

Services are not so difficult to write and maintain (syntax is easy files easy to read), timers are great tools, you still can use your own scripts, etc.
To be honest, it can ask me some time to succeed in doing some things. But, I'm not sure I would be faster and understand better with something else. Just the time to learn how to do things well. Anyway, I don't feel I'm going back by improving my understanding of systemd.

Skepticism is a good thing as it let you to dig into things by your own.
Which is perfectly compatible with Archlinux, even more with such a good community, strong and up-to-date documentation, and the specific tools you know (pacman and others).

Offline

#11 2017-01-16 18:53:29

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Eschwartz wrote:
ewaller wrote:

I also was skeptical at first.  The only negative I have is that the journal is kept in binary files rather than text files.

... which of course can also be fixed using syslog-ng/rsyslog. smile

I went for the other option: Observe the situation over the years and mark the day the fact, that the journal isn't plain text bites me in the ass with a big red cross on the calendar and donate 1 ct to Microsoft.

Red crosses: 0
Total donation to MS: 0,00 €

SubS0 wrote:

(In fact, I know a lot about philosophy...but not the unix one, if there's really one, and I don't care)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

Don't worry, people usually blow this kind of dogma way out of proportion. People who insist systemd "goes against" this "philosophy" usually either don't know the philosophy or systemd very well, or confuse "philosophy" with "devine law".

Last edited by Awebb (2017-01-16 19:03:31)

Offline

#12 2017-01-26 10:08:28

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 11,868

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

My personal systems only use systemd boot as a fallback option incase of problems, but i do help 3 friends maintain their archlinux/systemd machines.

In my opinion systemd and it's tools have improved a lot, but i still dislike several design choices in systemd .


One example :

Afaik systemd doesn't have a clean structured way to disable  what they call generators permanently ( check /usr/lib/systemd/system-generators ).

I would very much like to disable the fstab generator.

The only mechanism systemd provides for disabling generators is masking them, but on next systemd update all generators are unmasked .


Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.


(A works at time B)  && (time C > time B ) ≠  (A works at time C)

Offline

#13 2017-01-26 10:32:54

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Lone_Wolf wrote:

The only mechanism systemd provides for disabling generators is masking them, but on next systemd update all generators are unmasked .

Sounds like it's time to write a systemd unit to auto mask whatever you want to mask on boot. EDIT: ... or better, after an update. A pacman hook?

But I agree, this could be solved better.

Last edited by Awebb (2017-01-26 10:37:11)

Offline

#14 2017-01-27 13:06:53

ernibert
Member
Registered: 2012-03-09
Posts: 13

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Well, systemd and its tools is still the same crap as it always has been.  Maybe it has been stabilized but it is still the same systemd. When you disliked it those days ago, you will do it nowadays too.
Unfortunatly, nearly all distros has jumped on that train so you will hardly find alternatives when looking at the "big players".
I do not know anything about philosophies in Unix nor do i know internals of systemd - all i know is the debugging became quite harder to me and it felt a bit unreliable. Sometimes at boot systemd does this, the next time it does that. Dont know why and finally I don't care:
After even Arch does drop i686 support, my Linux times seems to be over, Windows7 runs pretty well on machines which now will be unsupported by Linux. So the question is more: Will you go for Linux at all? If so, you'll have to use systemd. If not, there are hardly alternatives except M$ ... oh wait, try FreeBSD or things like that.

Offline

#15 2017-01-27 13:32:47

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 29,449
Website

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

The above post should have a surgeon general warning that reading it may make you dumber.  Ernibert, you have a reasonable point in there that despite some polishing, systemd is still systemd and if one didn't like how it worked when it was new to arch, there's a fair chance they might not now.  Despite several posts above presenting evidence to the contrary, it is not an unreasonable view to put forward.  Beyond that, though, you seem to go quite off the deep end.

As for not caring why systemd doesn't work the way you expect, well, you clearly do care - just not enough to learn something new.  As for gripes about i686 support being EOL, that is simply misplaced here.  And the claims that Linux as a whole cannot run on i686 machines is just complete nonsense.

Then on your claims that there are no linux alternatives to systemd, well that's just crap too.  It is a fair point that many of the major distros are using systemd as their default init.  But there are also countlessly many distros that don't, and countless ways of not using the default.  Archlinux has a good portion of active community members who keep up openRC or other init systems.  They are perfectly viable in arch.

So in short, there is a shred of truth in your post, but your hysteria seems to have driven such excess of hyperbole that nothing in your post can actually be believed.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#16 2017-01-27 13:56:41

ernibert
Member
Registered: 2012-03-09
Posts: 13

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

LOL !   I'm not sure who's hysteric...  anyway, won't discuss anything in that mode.

Just two notes:
* All I said is when you disliked systemd years ago, you will hardy like it nowadays as nothing has changed in architecture and attitudes.
* I havn't said that Linux does not run on i686 at all - read again before you write such crap. What I meant is that its too bad the best distro ever also leaves that architecture behind and with that, Arch will not run on those machines (when i686 is physically gone next year). For the desktop, Elementary has dropped i686 support, now Arch does. This is what is bad because i don't want to throw away well-doing machines because my favorite OS will no longer support them.

Last edited by ernibert (2017-01-27 14:50:34)

Offline

#17 2017-01-27 14:36:07

ugjka
Member
From: Latvia
Registered: 2014-04-01
Posts: 1,794
Website

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

the problem with i686 is that many applications now require sse2 and won't compile or run on it.


https://ugjka.net
paru > yay | webcord > discord
pacman -S spotify-launcher
mount /dev/disk/by-...

Offline

#18 2017-01-27 14:49:33

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 6,275

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

ugjka wrote:

the problem with i686 is that many applications now require sse2 and won't compile or run on it.

That's a topic for another thread.

ernibert wrote:

anyway, won't discuss anything in that mode.

Instead you spread FUD and argue around your touchy-feelings, point out "all the bad things" - no matter the relation to the topic - name "a bigger evil" and inflate the context of the topic to somehow validate your drivel. Good job.

Last edited by Awebb (2017-01-27 14:55:53)

Offline

#19 2017-01-27 17:43:55

x33a
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2009-08-15
Posts: 4,587

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Alright guys, let's try to keep it on topic, else this thread will end up where most of such threads eventually end up.

Offline

#20 2017-01-31 19:14:23

Brcher
Member
Registered: 2011-06-20
Posts: 36

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

I was grumpy about the SystemD syntax changes, and never really got used to typing systemctl blah blah or making unit thingies, but if it actually were something I interacted with I suppose I'd have gotten used to it by now. So, if you think an init system is something that ought to mostly manage itself (which I do), it appears to work quite well.

Offline

#21 2017-02-24 22:11:03

Doc Robot
Member
From: Indiana
Registered: 2014-02-26
Posts: 13

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

At this point, I'm fairly convinced that I'm the only person in the world who actually likes systemd.


Public PGP Key
gopher://gopher.club:70/1/users/docrobot/

Offline

#22 2017-04-14 04:32:55

timemaster
Member
Registered: 2012-09-26
Posts: 26

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Hi there. don't worry about systemd. it does it's job and it does it well. you have journals integrated with all deamon that you start and that is super useful, plus once you learn it - yep it does require some times - it's usable in all distros, commercials and non commercials. I am happy with it, it's much better than the old system.

Offline

#23 2017-04-14 07:55:54

x33a
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2009-08-15
Posts: 4,587

Re: Coming back to Arch? Maybe?

Since we haven't heard from the OP in a long time, I'll close this thread to prevent more bikeshedding.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB