Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

MadmanRB · 2014-09-28 04:52:52

My question is does it matter?
As long as it works for the end user I think whatever the distros chooses matters.
As a non developer I dont see the fuss.
But even if was a developer I would adapt, which really the only ones complaining about this are seemingly in the minority.
Heck as far as startup goes systemd is lightning, I have used init and upstart and while both are adequate systemd seems to boot the fastest.
As long as it doesnt break my system color me pleased.

Last edited by MadmanRB (2014-09-28 04:53:37)

Asmir · 2014-09-28 06:25:31

I found an interesting article, mostly about SystemD design, recently.
Anyway I'm not happy with SystemD because it's big, getting bigger and makes my netbook slow.
I'm a happy OpenRC user btw.

chaonaut · 2014-09-28 08:21:59

am i the only person here who is happy with systemd ?
p.s. as a former LFS user, i really hate sysvinit.

jasonwryan · 2014-09-28 08:49:05

Can we please not derail what has been a productive discussion of systemd with pointless observations about rhetoric or what people like, or don't like about it?

PReP · 2014-09-28 18:39:37

Indeed!

Personally i feel, uneased, by where systemd seems to be working towards.
But at the same time i am currently using it with only minor annoyances and re-working of some habits.

Even feeling atleast non-pro-systemd - this thread was supposed to be constructive discussion, and/or reflection of all of our different beliefs and ideas
of what a common linux-system is, who it's target might be,
and how we feel about that balanced against what the current trend in linux and systemd development seems to be, as the excerpt i quoted.

So as jasonwryan says, let's try to skip atleast the usual comments against, or for, systemd that we have all already debated back and forth and which is yet to be seen,
and carry on with the good stuff of which civilized discussions are made (or something like that ) which luckily thus far are the majority of posting on here

*brews a lot more pots of tea*

Last edited by PReP (2014-09-28 18:40:25)

Lone_Wolf · 2014-09-29 10:06:38

We want an efficient way that allows vendors to package their software (regardless if just an app, or the whole OS) directly for the end user, and know the precise combination of libraries and packages it will operate with.

On a rolling-release distro "the precise combination of libraries and packages" is by nature a dynamically fast-changing environment.
Are these plans intended for all linux distros or only for those using static releases ?

We want our images to be trustable (i.e. signed). In fact we want a fully trustable OS, with images that can be verified by a full trust chain from the firmware (EFI SecureBoot!), through the boot loader, through the kernel, and initrd. Cryptographically secure verification of the code we execute is relevant on the desktop (like ChromeOS does), but also for apps, for embedded devices and even on servers (in a post-Snowden world, in particular).

WHO will be responsible for signing these things / verifying they can be trusted ?

We want a unified solution that ultimately can cover updates for full systems, OS containers, end user apps, programming ABIs, and more. These updates shall be double-buffered, (at least). This is an absolute necessity if we want to prepare the ground for operating systems that manage themselves, that can update safely without administrator involvement.

If no administrator involvement is needed , WHO will decide what needs to be updated and when ?

HiImTye · 2014-09-29 10:24:41

Lone_Wolf wrote:

We want a unified solution that ultimately can cover updates for full systems, OS containers, end user apps, programming ABIs, and more. These updates shall be double-buffered, (at least). This is an absolute necessity if we want to prepare the ground for operating systems that manage themselves, that can update safely without administrator involvement.
If no administrator involvement is needed , WHO will decide what needs to be updated and when ?

this sounds like the annoying "feature" that Android and Windows have (idk if OSX has it). I loathe when I'm trying to do something on my tablet or phone and then it gets bogged down by auto-updates, and I know Windows users hate when they want to quickly restart and they have to wait for updates to finish.

PReP · 2014-09-29 10:43:09

This is mostly my fright with these general ideas.

To me any strive to make "smart automatic systems" for systems always ends up with frustration somewhere down the road.
"one size fits all" or just "most people need this and this and that and this let's start it up for them as default" just means that there is more to work "against" when the automatic systems fails,
or when I might wish to have my system do something else or not carry the burden of running something or whatever.

This is largely why i got stuck with linux in the first place, more time to set things up to my liking - but infinetly more time saved whenever something goes bad (and something always will with computers). It is easier to fix or look into a fix when atleast having had a bit of a personal hands-on when getting your system running in the first place.

"Oh this thing borked, probably becasue i setup this yesterday - let's re-do that better"
Instead of "Oh something bad happened with something in this thing here let's try to reboot/re-install, look around for what my system actually is doing with this".

Oversimplified example, but i _like_ that the current linux-approach has been to learn how to get this or that going instead of being automatically fed with best-case-wishfull automatic setups.

I think there is a place for that, and a use-case-group for that - i just wished it could be a differerent choice for those, and not having all devices (phones, tablets, desktops, servers) trying to work with the same base system.

That is basically my objection, that they seem to want to bundle all of us together and hope to cather to everything with one tool (or set of tools).

Arch Linux

#26 2014-09-28 04:52:52

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

#27 2014-09-28 06:25:31

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

#28 2014-09-28 08:21:59

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

#29 2014-09-28 08:49:05

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

#30 2014-09-28 18:39:37

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

#31 2014-09-29 10:06:38

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

#32 2014-09-29 10:24:41

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

#33 2014-09-29 10:43:09

Re: Goals of current systemd development, what do you think?

Board footer