You are not logged in.

#76 2012-08-27 09:51:20

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,399

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

from arch-dev-public ,  https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 23469.html

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 05:15:39PM -0400, Dave Reisner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed on
> IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough
> audience. Some of you have probably already noticed that systemd 189 now
> provides, conflicts, and replaces libsystemd and systemd-tools. This is
> the next logical step since systemd will eventually be in base once we
> have sufficient unit coverage.
>
> As an added bonus, maybe this will encourage people who haven't switched
> over yet to do so. wink
>
> Cheers,
> Dave

Just to be clear, there aren't any new conflicts introduced with this
change. sysvinit/initscripts and systemd can still co-exist, with
systemd-sysvcompat continuing to carry the only conflict. The net result
is only that you will have systemd installed whether you use it or not.

d


Hi,

I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed on
IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough
audience. Some of you have probably already noticed that systemd 189 now
provides, conflicts, and replaces libsystemd and systemd-tools. This is
the next logical step since systemd will eventually be in base once we
have sufficient unit coverage.

As an added bonus, maybe this will encourage people who haven't switched
over yet to do so. wink

Cheers,
Dave

As an added bonus, maybe this will encourage people who haven't switched
over yet to do so. wink

Rephrased :
As an added bonus, maybe this will encourage those against systemd for non-technical reasons to leave arch faster.

----------------------------------------------

I've been looking into alternatives for arch, but those i found that come somewhat close all use systemd also.
The hardest part of accepting systemd will be to stomach a solution designed by someone not adhering to the basic Unix  philosophy "Write programs that do one thing and do it well."

@Tom Gundersen :
The post you made on page 2 of this thread  is high quality and very informative, thanks for that.
I have it bookmarked.


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#77 2012-08-27 10:00:03

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Rephrased :
As an added bonus, maybe this will encourage those against systemd for non-technical reasons to leave arch faster.

----------------------------------------------

I've been looking into alternatives for arch, but those i found that come somewhat close all use systemd also.
The hardest part of accepting systemd will be to stomach a solution designed by someone not adhering to the basic Unix  philosophy "Write programs that do one thing and do it well."

UNIX principles are mostly irrelevant nowadays in Linuxland. I doubt you will find any alternative besides Slackware or maybe CRUX to what you're looking for. Slackware will probably avoid systemd the same way it does for PAM. Like the plague.
Maybe give the BSDs a shot. Especially OpenBSD and NetBSD.

Last edited by dolby (2012-08-27 10:03:57)


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#78 2012-08-27 10:00:47

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,854

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Lone_Wolf wrote:

I've been looking into alternatives for arch, but those i found that come somewhat close all use systemd also.

Maybe there's a sound reason for that. Occam's Razor and all that, you know.

Lone_Wolf wrote:

The hardest part of accepting systemd will be to stomach a solution designed by someone not adhering to the basic Unix  philosophy "Write programs that do one thing and do it well."

Discussion on this likely won't go anywhere, but you could perhaps try to take a look at the software you use most on your own system, then consider whether any of them actually do only 'one thing'. Philosophies are useful as guides, but treating them as articles of faith is likely to cause more harm than good.


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#79 2012-08-27 10:20:55

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,399

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Dolby : the BSDs have many nice things, but lack to much in hardware support for me (especially their graphics drivers).
slackware seems mostly a 1-man distro, and i don't like his choices.
I doubt Crux has rolling release and a decent ABS/Aurmakepkg/PKGBUILD replacement, which means it's not for me.

Ngonee :
I'm a weird kind of person, if i have  a choice between a toolkit with dedicated tools and an all-in-one toolkit, i always go for the dedicated one.
Systemd has way to many similarities with the all-in-one toolkit imo.

In the MSDos/PCDos period there were 2 famous utility toolkit programs : Norton utilities and PC Tools.
While both could do the job, i only used PC Tools if i didn't have NU available, a floppy/CD with NU on it was a madantory part of my toolkit for helping other people then.

I have yet to find a single occasion where an all-in-one solution is better then a dedicated one.

Edit :
Viable Init replacements appear to be limited to Systemd and upstart , and systemd is imo way better then upstart.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2012-08-27 10:24:36)


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#80 2012-08-27 10:31:46

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Lone_Wolf wrote:

I doubt Crux has rolling release and a decent ABS/Aurmakepkg/PKGBUILD replacement, which means it's not for me.

CRUX is of course rolling release and also has a pretty decent ports system. But after the initial installation, assuming its done from an ISO its 100% source based.
I dont think theres any alternative to Arch not using systemd, or otherwise to be honest.
After all, besides Ubuntu, Debian and Slackware, everyone is gonna be using it. It seems that using Debian or Gentoo you will have a choice about which init system to use even in the long run. Maybe one of those then.


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#81 2012-08-27 11:07:19

San2ban
Banned
From: Bangalore, India
Registered: 2010-02-09
Posts: 258

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

LoneWolf
If systemd is the only thing irking you on ArchLinux, pl. change over to 'runit'. I have changed over to 'runit', works beautifully, adheres to unix philosophy


Satyam eva jayate

Registered linux user #535257

Offline

#82 2012-08-27 11:20:22

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,399

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Crux handbook wrote:

6.3. Upgrading the Kernel

The kernel source, which is found in /usr/src/linux-2.6.35.x/ is not installed using pkgadd. If you decide to upgrade your kernel you can safely do so by manually replacing the kernel source with a newer version (or place it somewhere else). This will not make the package database inconsistent (since it's not installed with pkgadd) nor will it affect the kernel headers found in /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm since these are not symlinks to the kernel source, but instead contain copies of the headers.

If your package manager doesn't keep track of the whole system, why have one in the first place ?

Crux is out of the picture.

Debian : my first choice for a server that requires reliability and stability, but their Unstable repo is imo lower quality then arch repos.
Also i don't think they have a decent equivalent for makepkg/PKGBUILD/AUR .

Gentoo : tried it once, but aborted it when makeworld hadn't finished after 48 hours.
Might try it again, but ebuilds overcomplicate things and are no match for PKGBUILD .

Looks like archlinux has spoiled me to much, guess it's time to delve into systemd for longer then a few hours.

San2ban : i'll look into it, thanks for the tip.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2012-08-27 11:21:14)


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#83 2012-08-27 15:01:45

fsckd
Forum Moderator
Registered: 2009-06-15
Posts: 3,574

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Lone_Wolf, you are hijacking this thread. That would be a TGN topic anyways. What distro you should use depends on your own needs. Do your research and try them.


aur S & M :: forum rules :: Community Ethos
Resources for Women, POC, LGBT*, and allies

Offline

#84 2012-08-27 16:31:54

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,399

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Seems i have spend to much time lately on a forum for a game where the forum rules are very different.
example : thread necromancy there is no problem at all and often very useful.

Ok, bringing the thread back on topic :

judging by posts on the dev-public mailinglist, archlinux will move to systemd in the near future, whether we like it or not.


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#85 2012-08-27 23:57:19

D4ve
Member
Registered: 2012-08-02
Posts: 209

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Is systemd self-optimizing?

My first boot with systemd as init-process took 45 seconds, the second boot 35 seconds and now it takes only 18 seconds. WTF?

Offline

#86 2012-08-28 00:27:20

Grinch
Member
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 265

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Lone_Wolf wrote:

judging by posts on the dev-public mailinglist, archlinux will move to systemd in the near future, whether we like it or not.

Who are 'we'? Those who do not like systemd? No, I don't think the devs will care about you.

While I've yet to try out systemd for myself (and likely won't until it becomes default) how can anyone be surprised that Arch is going to use it? Pretty much every Linux distro except Ubuntu which has it's own version called 'upstart' will end up using it. They will use it because it offers alot of features to make it easier to maintain and will help simplify and standarize initialization across Linux distros (yay!).

I knew what I was getting into when switching to Arch, it's a rolling, bleeding edge distro which will adapt any new tech the developers find worthwhile, with little to no regard for how that affects the 'user's feelings'. If you have a aversion to change then Arch Linux is not going to be the distro for you I'm sure, in fact I reckon the whole Linux 'system' is in for a lot of change in the coming years so perhaps you are better off with something like FreeBSD/OpenBSD which is more of the -'steady as she goes, captain', variety.

Offline

#87 2012-08-28 01:07:24

ElderSnake
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-12-09
Posts: 93

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

D4ve wrote:

Is systemd self-optimizing?

My first boot with systemd as init-process took 45 seconds, the second boot 35 seconds and now it takes only 18 seconds. WTF?

Can't say I've noticed much difference in my boot speed, even compared to the old init. However I'm aware that biggest boot gains using systemd are with SSD's, so with my old school HDD's I suppose it's a bottleneck and will only ever be as fast as it is. Still it's pretty darn fast.

I would be interested to read more about what systemd does there, I do believe there is an element of self-optimization. Or, at least, the first fresh boot with systemd is the longest and boots thereafter are usually faster as it works out which processes are needed most often and their priority (correct me if I'm wrong).


Arch Linux - Intel E5200 Desktop (Cinnamon 2.0) - Debian Testing - Netbook EeePC AMD C-50 (Xfce)

Offline

#88 2012-08-28 03:46:18

ANOKNUSA
Member
Registered: 2010-10-22
Posts: 2,141

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

ElderSnake wrote:
D4ve wrote:

Is systemd self-optimizing?

My first boot with systemd as init-process took 45 seconds, the second boot 35 seconds and now it takes only 18 seconds. WTF?

Can't say I've noticed much difference in my boot speed, even compared to the old init. However I'm aware that biggest boot gains using systemd are with SSD's, so with my old school HDD's I suppose it's a bottleneck and will only ever be as fast as it is. Still it's pretty darn fast.

I would be interested to read more about what systemd does there, I do believe there is an element of self-optimization. Or, at least, the first fresh boot with systemd is the longest and boots thereafter are usually faster as it works out which processes are needed most often and their priority (correct me if I'm wrong).

Systemd features both a read-ahead function and the ability to single out lengthy processes during boot-up.  Check out the Arch wiki for read-ahead info, and use "systemd-analyze" to check per-process boot time (note that you'll need to install python2-dbus for the latter to work).  My boot time's down to 4 seconds from syslinux menu to login prompt.  Check this list for more details.

Offline

#89 2012-08-30 11:18:29

zb3
Member
Registered: 2012-05-07
Posts: 23
Website

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

fsckd wrote:

That would be a TGN topic anyways.

yeah, mute everyone who is against systemd

Well, thanks to this enforcement = I made my OWN lightweight linux, using what I want, no more udev, no more systemd, dbus etc
No more arch, compiling everything from source without any package manager encourages you to use the smallest possible solution, and thats what I was looking for.


zb3

Offline

#90 2012-08-30 11:23:20

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,839

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

And we wish you all the best with it.

Offline

#91 2012-08-30 12:25:18

ratcheer
Member
Registered: 2011-10-09
Posts: 518

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

@zb3 - Sounds kind of like Linux From Scratch.

Yes, good luck.

Tim

Offline

#92 2012-08-30 14:08:31

Mr.Elendig
#archlinux@freenode channel op
From: The intertubes
Registered: 2004-11-07
Posts: 3,740

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

zb3 wrote:

yeah, mute everyone who is against systemd

TNG isn't muting, you can still post in the thread after it is moved.

Also archlinux is not a democracy. It is closer to a collection of independent dictators with a, for the most part, shared goal.
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 9#p1136089

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2012-08-30 14:16:56)


Evil #archlinux@freenode channel op and general support dude.
. files on github, Screenshots, Random pics and the rest

Offline

#93 2012-08-30 15:15:44

brain0
Developer
From: Aachen - Germany
Registered: 2005-01-03
Posts: 1,382

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Lone_Wolf wrote:

The hardest part of accepting systemd will be to stomach a solution designed by someone not adhering to the basic Unix  philosophy "Write programs that do one thing and do it well."

That principle comes from a time when shared libraries did not exist. To avoid creating more bugs, you wrote one program for each task and made sure it was as bug-free as possible. You then called these programs and passed data between them. This is completely inefficient and error-prone, as you need to repeatedly output data and parse it again, copying lots of it on the way.

Nowadays, code is shared via shared libraries. You write a library with a certain set of functions and use that code everywhere. You get the benefit of the "one task programs" as with the classic UNIX principle. But you also get more efficient and safer ways to combine those programs into something bigger. This makes the principle you quoted obsolete.

Now, instead of booting our systems like we did in the 70s, Arch, which is a bleeding edge distribution and is supposed to use modern technologies, finally moved to a solution that is able to easily overcome the challenges of modern computing. It is also actively maintained and constantly being improved. You can influence its development by discussing with the developers.

I only switched to systemd yesterday and learned how it works. Once you get the hang of it, it is incredibly easy to customize and extend for your own needs. What used to be ugly hacks I manually added to rc.local and rc.d files are now very simple, clean and easy-to-read service files. This is a great step forward into the future of Linux computing.

And while you're so keen on the "one program for one job" principle: Why don't you remove decompression support from tar? Oh, you use tar xf on .tar.gz files? That is against the UNIX principle. tar is not supposed to decompress, it has to be zcat file | tar xf -. SCNR.

Offline

#94 2012-08-30 15:24:16

fsckd
Forum Moderator
Registered: 2009-06-15
Posts: 3,574

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

zb3 wrote:
fsckd wrote:

That would be a TGN topic anyways.

yeah, mute everyone who is against systemd

Derails of "what distro should I use" or "I am no longer going to use Arch Linux" are TGN and off-topic to this thread.

This thread has lots of good posts and so I am hesitant in moving it to TGN.


aur S & M :: forum rules :: Community Ethos
Resources for Women, POC, LGBT*, and allies

Offline

#95 2012-08-30 16:46:12

ANOKNUSA
Member
Registered: 2010-10-22
Posts: 2,141

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

brain0 wrote:

Nowadays, code is shared via shared libraries. You write a library with a certain set of functions and use that code everywhere. You get the benefit of the "one task programs" as with the classic UNIX principle. But you also get more efficient and safer ways to combine those programs into something bigger. This makes the principle you quoted obsolete.

I wouldn't say it's obsolete; it's just ill-defined, since "one thing" (that is, one task) can encompass a multitude of steps and processes.  A decent example of this would be ncmpcpp: It's primary purpose is to play music.  With that in mind, does it really need to include a tag editor?  No, but it is arguably simpler (from a user's perspective) to let the user edit tags then and there, rather than exit ncmpcpp, edit the tags, then launch ncmpcpp again to see if the edits had the desired effect. 

Using the "one thing" argument with regard to systemd seems to me to ignore the fact that the initscripts can fit this definition, yet not be the most suitable tools for the task.  They are indeed programs that do one thing: They each launch other programs.  So what you find is a collection of programs, each one designed to launch yet another program, with all these separate programs requiring there own monitors and resources and  expected to work in concert but having no unified method of monitoring and altering them.  Systemd, on the other hand, seems to be written to replace all the separate (and in some cases, disparate) programs and instead provide a single framework which can be modified as desired to launch all necessary processes during start-up and start a user session.  To use a bad analogy (maybe I am looking at this wrong):  If one's goal is to increase the efficiency, reliability and accountability of a manufacturing process, adding more workers to the production line isn't necessarily a good idea.  Sure, you'll end up with more workers working on fewer tasks, but you'll also greatly increase the potential for  human error, the amount of monitoring the process requires and greater lack of flexibility between workers at different workstations.  Sure, systemd's source code contains more lines, but it's all in one place and can be debugged without the need to first identify the culprit before the problem.  There is no clear demarcation between programs that are too complex and too simple, and if one's goal is to start and monitor a series of critical processes, using a separate launcher for each separate program (thus potentially increasing the number of text files needed to be opened, scanned and edited) might not be the best approach.

Offline

#96 2012-08-30 18:35:46

mamamia88
Member
Registered: 2012-08-29
Posts: 483

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Noobie here so please bear with me.   I just upgraded with pacman to systemd.    Then I edited grub like the wiki said.  Rebooted everything seems fine.   Do i need to create configuration files like locale and timezone etc if i live in the united states and it defaults to the united states keymap anyway and my time is correct?    I assume eventually i'll have to move my daemons array in rc.conf eventually right?      Or am i good for the foreseeable future?

Offline

#97 2012-08-30 18:42:47

tomegun
Developer
From: France
Registered: 2010-05-28
Posts: 661

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

mamamia88 wrote:

Do i need to create configuration files like locale and timezone etc if i live in the united states and it defaults to the united states keymap anyway and my time is correct?

Should not be necessary. I assume that your /etc/localtime is already a correct symlink to your timezone. The /etc/timezone file is hopefully going away at some point soon, but for now it is needed when if you want gnome to be able to read/set your timezone (using timedated).

I assume eventually i'll have to move my daemons array in rc.conf eventually

I'd strongly suggest commenting out the DAEMONS array and rather "systemctl enable <daemon>.service" the correct services. The DAEMONS array _should_ work, but it is much better/safer to use the native solution.

Offline

#98 2012-08-30 18:54:30

mamamia88
Member
Registered: 2012-08-29
Posts: 483

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

looks simple enough.  i guess i should do it before an upgrade blindsides me and i'm wondering why my wifi isn't working. one last thing if i switch to that will i be forced to mess with kernel modules if my wifi driver is currently loaded automatically?

Last edited by mamamia88 (2012-08-30 18:58:22)

Offline

#99 2012-08-30 19:16:56

AaronBP
Member
Registered: 2012-08-06
Posts: 142
Website

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

brain0 wrote:

Nowadays, code is shared via shared libraries. You write a library with a certain set of functions and use that code everywhere. You get the benefit of the "one task programs" as with the classic UNIX principle. But you also get more efficient and safer ways to combine those programs into something bigger. This makes the principle you quoted obsolete.

I don't know about that. I use tiny specialized applications every day, and I bet you do, too! It's silly to suggest that every application should fit the old Unix model, but it's also a mistake to underestimate it's usefulness and flexibility, which a programming library cannot match in many use cases.

Offline

#100 2012-08-30 19:56:00

brain0
Developer
From: Aachen - Germany
Registered: 2005-01-03
Posts: 1,382

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

AaronBP wrote:
brain0 wrote:

Nowadays, code is shared via shared libraries. You write a library with a certain set of functions and use that code everywhere. You get the benefit of the "one task programs" as with the classic UNIX principle. But you also get more efficient and safer ways to combine those programs into something bigger. This makes the principle you quoted obsolete.

I don't know about that. I use tiny specialized applications every day, and I bet you do, too! It's silly to suggest that every application should fit the old Unix model, but it's also a mistake to underestimate it's usefulness and flexibility, which a programming library cannot match in many use cases.

For interactive usage, you are right. For any complex task that needs to be automated, use of library functions is safer.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB