Archlinux is moving to systemd

czubek · 2012-10-29 17:04:55

I for one very much like systemd and the direction it is taking. The more programs I can remove and not have to configure the more I like it. If Linux evolves into nothing more than a kernel, surrounded by systemd, onto which we install our favorite programs that would be great.

thestinger · 2012-10-29 17:08:42

incassum wrote:

@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).

You don't have to write any more lines or fiddle around in more places. You can do everything required to transition away from rc.conf from the shell with a few utilities like systemctl, hostnamectl, timedatectl and localectl. They will even autocomplete things like timezones for you (America/<tab>) and the RTC clock will automatically be adjusted on time changes (and timezone changes if you're using localtime).

As someone who does a lot of edits to the wiki, and a lot of updating pages - I can tell you with 100% certainty that the new ways are far, far simpler to use. What used to take 50 pages to explain in the Beginners' Guide is down to a bit over 20 (but that's also thanks to arch-install-scripts). For one example among many, the time page got a bit simpler now that it doesn't have to be the user handling all the low level details (but the same flexibility is there).

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.

All you need to do is put a .conf file in modprobe.d like this:

blacklist foo
blacklist bar
blacklist baz

This change wasn't related to systemd, it was upstream software improving enough that rc.conf (which never did duplicate upstream configuration) no longer needed to do it. It's no longer a distro-specific thing, it will work on any of them. Loading modules in modules-load.d is even simpler (just need the module names).

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?

How exactly was opening up a bash script in a text editor and adding strings to a bash array simpler than running a single command, that even comes with nice bash/zsh autocompletion for unit names?

systemctl enable chrony cronie net-auto-wired net-auto-wired

@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).

The install media uses systemd, as do all new installs.

@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.

There are no changes with startx. ConsoleKit always required you to keep the session on the same TTY. There was a hack used as a workaround (moving the session permissions with ck-launch-session) which is no longer available. The xorg-xinit package includes an xserverrc that never worked out-of-the-box with ConsoleKit, and continues to not work with logind (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/32206).

@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.

Systemd is far from a single application. There are many separate utilities, lots of which are even usable without running systemd as the init system (like systemd-tmpfiles, which initscripts makes use of).

The path projects like util-linux, udev and systemd are taking is towards having all the important Linux plumbing in well maintained (and documented) repositories, instead of spread out over dozens of half-dead projects. It is a change in project management, not a change in modular vs. monolithic.

You mention BSD as an alternative, but this is exactly what the BSDs do - all of their code (kernel, utilities, libraries, etc.) is maintained in a single code repository, and very well integrated together. Software like openssh and openntpd is not portable, it takes full advantage of OpenBSD's capabilities - the portable versions are separate projects and they lack a lot of the features, despite having to use much more code.

POSIX doesn't even provide a portable way to close a file - close() can fail, but on Linux the file will always be closed. On some systems, you have to keep looping until it doesn't fail. There is no way to write a portable POSIX application that even just closes a file handle safely (and this is on a system based on using files for everything....).

Last edited by thestinger (2012-10-29 17:15:48)

tomegun · 2012-10-29 17:27:47

incassum wrote:

@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?

I, for one, don't mind verbosity, but it would be easier if you quote the things you are replying to (as it stands I only have a vague memory of even the things I myself wrote).

@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.

It seems to me that the kind of simplicity that you want (for it to "just work") is not the kind of simplicity we are striving for (though that should be possible too of course). We are trying to make it simple and straight-forward to dig into the details of how your system work and understand it from top to bottom. That means, no hacks and no cheap tricks to make things "simpler for the end user". We expose the system as it is, no more, no less.

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.

Most of us are not coders (nor are we people who would substitute numbers for letters); and we are not expecting our users to be. We are, however, expecting our users to be willing and able to read documentation and understand how their system works.

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.

It would probably be a good idea to actually scan through the wiki article rather than speculate about how easy or hard the instructions in it are likely to be. For

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?

So now you have to do "systemctl enable/disable <daemon>" instead. The new way has some minor benefits (you'll get an error immediately if something is wrong, rather than having to find that out on the next reboot), but overall they are both equally trivial.

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

Feel free to substitute "community" with "debate" in what I said.

"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.

I am one of those people who believe that people who complain without contributing should be ignored as a matter of principle, regardless of whether or not money is involved.

@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).

We have had a pure systemd install media for some time. We made the move to systemd in stages to make sure any issues would be detected early on: most of the devs moved to systemd, we announced the move, we moved all our infrastructure, we moved the install media to systemd, we installed systemd by default rather than initscripts and we will soon start having packages that require you to have switched to systemd. If your question is "why didn't we just do it all at once", the answer is that it turns out that we could have, but we were being careful.

@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.

All these issues you are alluding to comes from logind replacing consolekit. This will happen soon, but has not happened yet. If you never used consolekit it should not affect you. If you indirectly used consolekit it should be taken care of for you by the packagers. If you used consolekit directly you'll have to make some adjustments.

scjet · 2012-10-29 19:13:47

czubek wrote:

If Linux evolves into nothing more than a kernel, surrounded by systemd, onto which we install our favorite programs that would be great.

mmm, well it's very hard NOT to be more "verbose" than "that", wow, but like i said previously, I'm probably just guessing here.
Anyway, back to the topic ... 70's pleeez.

Last edited by scjet (2012-10-29 19:14:04)

Awebb · 2012-10-30 09:05:53

He does not have a question, he's sharing thoughts.

zb3 · 2012-10-31 13:45:42

tomegun wrote:

I am one of those people who believe that people who complain without contributing should be ignored as a matter of principle, regardless of whether or not money is involved.

wow. isn't complaint a form of contribution?
And what if I am complaining about thing Y, saying it's completely pointless(no, I am not talking about any specific software here), should I contribute to Y?
The ones who complain usually want to fix the problem, and sometimes the whole thing Y may be the problem
By saying to complain you need to contribute, you restrict this distro for developers only, because non-developers won't be able to model this distro

WonderWoofy · 2012-10-31 13:50:24

This distro is essentially made for the people who devlop it. We mere users are just lucky enough to be able to ride the coat tails of that great group of people.

And no complaining is not contribution. I think complaining can sometimes be just whining, where I think you see it as testing. But contributiing to true bug reports and helping debug a situaltion, thereby acheiving the "...want to fix the problem" that is probably more along the lines of actually contributing.

zb3 · 2012-10-31 13:59:13

In most cases, the first step to fix a problem is to know about it (problem, not a bug in code)

Complaining (it's now about this particular topic) in this case, can help people to see a problem.
Examples: logind -> "init replacement" -> " That means that the system must be booted with systemd to be fully functional."
Wat?

tomegun · 2012-10-31 14:01:35

zb3 wrote:

tomegun wrote:
I am one of those people who believe that people who complain without contributing should be ignored as a matter of principle, regardless of whether or not money is involved.
wow. isn't complaint a form of contribution?

Absolutely not. It adds nothing. It demotivates and it distracts the people who want to find solutions and get things done.

And what if I am complaining about thing Y, saying it's completely pointless(no, I am not talking about any specific software here), should I contribute to Y?

If it truly is pointless, then you can ignore it. No need to complain and no need to contribute. If you think it is detrimental, then you'd have to contribute to solving the problems it solves in a different way so that it becomes superfluous.

The ones who complain usually want to fix the problem, and sometimes the whole thing Y may be the problem
By saying to complain you need to contribute, you restrict this distro for developers only, because non-developers won't be able to model this distro

That is not true. You could contribute by making suggestions, even if you are not the one to actually write the patches. If you see Y as pointless, you can contribute by explaining how the problems it solves can be solved better in a different way. Of course that assumes a deep and intimate understanding of Y, the problems it solves and the use-cases it addresses, otherwise your contribution would just be noise.

tomegun · 2012-10-31 14:11:01

zb3 wrote:

In most cases, the first step to fix a problem is to know about it (problem, not a bug in code)
Complaining (it's now about this particular topic) in this case, can help people to see a problem.
Examples: logind -> "init replacement" -> " That means that the system must be booted with systemd to be fully functional."
Wat?

How is this helping? This adds no information that the devs (and anyone who read the news announcement) does not already have. In fact, I posted about this some weeks ago, so that people who did not like the way things are going could get organised and help themselves (it would have been very easy): http://archlinux.2023198.n4.nabble.com/ … 61493.html. Quite predictably, nothing ever came of that.

D4ve · 2012-10-31 16:24:01

WonderWoofy wrote:

This distro is essentially made for the people who devlop it.

So, this distro is for people who develop this distro to develop this distro? What?!

WonderWoofy · 2012-10-31 16:30:42

D4ve wrote:

WonderWoofy wrote:
This distro is essentially made for the people who devlop it.
So, this distro is for people who develop this distro to develop this distro? What?!

I think we have a language barrier here. Maybe it would be better worded as: The developers make the distro for themselves. We are simply lucky enough to be able to use the fruits of their labor.

Jristz · 2012-10-31 16:41:20

ok: consolekit is gone, syslog-ng gone (optional) what next?? deprecated udisks1 and gstreamer0.10-plugins/python/ffmpeg ???

I ask for curiosity

jasonwryan · 2012-10-31 16:44:51

zb3 wrote:

tomegun wrote:
I am one of those people who believe that people who complain without contributing should be ignored as a matter of principle, regardless of whether or not money is involved.
wow. isn't complaint a form of contribution?

Only in the world of the obsessively self-involved and those with a hyper-developed sense of self-entitlement.

We aren't "customers" here; there are no "rights" about using Arch. If you want to run Arch, fine. If you want to contribute, do it constructively. If you can't manage that, then either refrain or move on.

karol · 2012-10-31 16:45:43

Jristz wrote:

ok: consolekit is gone, syslog-ng gone (optional) what next?? deprecated udisks1 and gstreamer0.10-plugins/python/ffmpeg ???
I ask for curiosity

You're right about gstreamer0.10 - we now have gstreamer 1.0.2-1 in the repos ;P

Just out of curiosity, what do you suggest we use instead of python/ffmpeg etc.?

Jristz · 2012-10-31 17:03:38

for gstreamer0.10-python, and for gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg (or you thing that I reffer to the python and ffmpeg package?) if no package use it I think is safe remove them and rebuild

and I notice that xfburn depend on gstreamer0.10-base

karol · 2012-10-31 17:16:53

Jristz wrote:

you thing that I reffer to the python and ffmpeg package?

Um, yes :-)
If you were talking about gstreamer0.10-* packages, then please disregard my question.

D4ve · 2012-10-31 17:39:49

WonderWoofy wrote:

D4ve wrote:
So, this distro is for people who develop this distro to develop this distro? What?!
I think we have a language barrier here. Maybe it would be better worded as: The developers make the distro for themselves. We are simply lucky enough to be able to use the fruits of their labor.

No language barrier, i understand what you wanted to say but i think it's not true.

I don't think we are simply lucky enough to be able to use archlinux. I think this distro is for everyone who needs a distro like this. Simple, minimalistic, stable, good community, no (or not many) downstream patched applications.

Archlinux doesn't waste man-power on serving more than one init-system. Of course there's a choice and if anyone wants to use initscripts, well, why not? But the developers concentrate on systemd and i thinks thats the right way. I don't want to say systemd is the right way, i say to concentrate on one init-system is the right way. No waste of man-power, everyone uses the same and you still have the choice if you don't want to use it. I never thought on not using systemd. If the developers say it will be standard they have their reasons and anyone who uses archlinux should respect this. Well, now we're on the point it looks like archlinux is for the developers who make this distro but, as said above, i don't think it's true. Such a great distro can't be just for developers (and don't forget theres a newbie-section in the forum).

Hope anyone understands what i want to say.

thestinger · 2012-10-31 17:57:18

D4ve wrote:

WonderWoofy wrote:
D4ve wrote:
So, this distro is for people who develop this distro to develop this distro? What?!
I think we have a language barrier here. Maybe it would be better worded as: The developers make the distro for themselves. We are simply lucky enough to be able to use the fruits of their labor.
No language barrier, i understand what you wanted to say but i think it's not true.
I don't think we are simply lucky enough to be able to use archlinux. I think this distro is for everyone who needs a distro like this. Simple, minimalistic, stable, good community, no (or not many) downstream patched applications.
Archlinux doesn't waste man-power on serving more than one init-system. Of course there's a choice and if anyone wants to use initscripts, well, why not? But the developers concentrate on systemd and i thinks thats the right way. I don't want to say systemd is the right way, i say to concentrate on one init-system is the right way. No waste of man-power, everyone uses the same and you still have the choice if you don't want to use it. I never thought on not using systemd. If the developers say it will be standard they have their reasons and anyone who uses archlinux should respect this. Well, now we're on the point it looks like archlinux is for the developers who make this distro but, as said above, i don't think it's true. Such a great distro can't be just for developers (and don't forget theres a newbie-section in the forum).
Hope anyone understands what i want to say.

It's not just for developers, the point is that it's developed by the Arch developers for the Arch developers based on consensus among themselves, not among the community. Community input is appreciated if it's time spent working on stuff like documentation, code, or even money to support the servers. The distribution isn't supposed to be popular or appeal to a broad audience, so what the users think about the developer decisions is pretty irrelevant to the decision-making.

Last edited by thestinger (2012-10-31 18:01:34)

ngoonee · 2012-10-31 23:27:26

thestinger wrote:

The distribution isn't supposed to be popular or appeal to a broad audience, so what the users think about the developer decisions is pretty irrelevant to the decision-making.

Pretty much this. Arch Linux is not trying to convince anyone to use it.

Now, could we please stop the meta-discussion. The topic is systemd and Arch's move to it (which is pretty far along by now due to gnome 3.6, ck-removal, etc.). Not 'who is the distro made for' or 'why complaints are contributions'. Start another thread on that, we'll move it to TGN, then have your fun.

WonderWoofy · 2012-11-01 01:05:02

Thanks thestinger and ngoonee, that was a much more articulate wording of what I was trying to say. Sorry for the noise...

So yeah... arch linux has moved to systemd... and I like it.

FlyingHappy · 2012-11-01 01:11:01

I have enjoyed the move. It was actually really easy for me to set up, had a little snag with my eth0 connection, but that was very easily overcome. I can even start miniDLNA up at boot now!

stryder · 2012-11-01 02:06:19

From the look of how things have been developing/changing so rapidly, we are in a transition and it is not complete. Can someone say when the transition will be complete? By "when" I do not mean a time, but a target set of default programs. At some point I would like to do a fresh installation just to get a new "baseline" so I don't have to worry about legacy configs/programs/issues. It is not important or urgent but it would be useful when the powers that be indicate the transition path they already have in mind.

karol · 2012-11-01 02:11:21

It depends on what do you define as 'complete transition' and what 'default programs' do you have in mind.
For example, not everyone had ConsoleKit installed so for them CK-removal didn't matter.

brain0 · 2012-11-01 02:11:25

stryder wrote:

From the look of how things have been developing/changing so rapidly, we are in a transition and it is not complete. Can someone say when the transition will be complete? By "when" I do not mean a time, but a target set of default programs.

After the consolekit-removal, I can't think of anything that needs to change for now. But as the software world surrounding Linux evolves, more things may need change.

Arch Linux

#401 2012-10-29 17:04:55

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#402 2012-10-29 17:08:42

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#403 2012-10-29 17:27:47

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#404 2012-10-29 19:13:47

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#405 2012-10-30 09:05:53

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#406 2012-10-31 13:45:42

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#407 2012-10-31 13:50:24

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#408 2012-10-31 13:59:13

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#409 2012-10-31 14:01:35

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#410 2012-10-31 14:11:01

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#411 2012-10-31 16:24:01

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#412 2012-10-31 16:30:42

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#413 2012-10-31 16:41:20

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#414 2012-10-31 16:44:51

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#415 2012-10-31 16:45:43

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#416 2012-10-31 17:03:38

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#417 2012-10-31 17:16:53

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#418 2012-10-31 17:39:49

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#419 2012-10-31 17:57:18

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#420 2012-10-31 23:27:26

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#421 2012-11-01 01:05:02

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#422 2012-11-01 01:11:01

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#423 2012-11-01 02:06:19

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#424 2012-11-01 02:11:21

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#425 2012-11-01 02:11:25

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Board footer