[phippsbrad]

To understand, you only need to read the recent posts about how systemd is effecting how commonly used userland applications work like: screen, tmux, nohup.

The systemd supporters are soon going to take away the ability to run pretty much all background processes (including using "&" in a shell) by killing those processes when your X session logs out.

This will fundamentally changes the way you administer and maintain a linux computer.

When told that this change is a bad idea, the systemd supporters said they knew better than you, and they are doing this to make the desktop UI better.

This is one small example why they invoke "hate".

They make a decisions like that every day that dramatically effect the entire linux platform.

If I can't run "nohup" or "screen" or "sh &" to do my job anymore, then that forces me to use some other OS/distro that does not have systemd installed as the default.

[justinsaccount]

> The systemd supporters are soon going to take away the ability to run pretty much all background processes (including using "&" in a shell) by killing those processes when your X session logs out.

Really? That is your takeaway from the recent changes?

What actually happened was that systemd developers changed the default setting (from off to on) for an optional feature in logind that has existed for 5 years.

This setting was promptly reverted back to off by default in Debian, and probably most distributions that are shipping a bleeding edge version of systemd.

No one is taking away anything from anyone, which unfortunately includes your ability to spread FUD about things that you don't understand.

[gnuvince]

> That is your takeaway from the recent changes?

My takeaway from that change was that (1) the systemd team was perfectly willing to break userspace (existing programs, scripts, and even habits), and (2) that they wanted to put the onus of dealing with their decisions on third parties (e.g., the Github issue for tmux).

[api]

"The systemd supporters are soon going to take away the ability to run pretty much all background processes (including using "&" in a shell) by killing those processes when your X session logs out."

WUT?

(goes and downloads FreeBSD...)

I've been a Linux user since 1993 and SystemV init was something definitely in need of replacement. But this was not even close to the most pressing problem in the Linux ecosystem. The most pressing problems were and are things like the clunkiness of package management, the inadequacy of the root/userland permission model, and general user experience and UI issues. Systemd is not addressing any of that and may actually be making some of those problems worse.

After using systemd a bit, I've become a hater too. It's a clean slate reboot of init and yet it's somehow managed to be more arcane and confusing than sysV-init. That's an accomplishment, but not an admirable one. It tries to do way too many things at once in one vertically integrated system, has an arcane confusing non-intuitive syntax and configuration scheme, and just generally feels "enterprise" in the "over-engineered mess" pejorative sense of the term. Whenever I use it I find myself thinking "why would you do it like that?" and "who wanted that?" over and over again. It feels like the sort of system that's deliberately engineered for obtuseness so high priced consultants can be paid to operate it. Maybe it is.

Unfortunately FreeBSD's init system seems at first glance to be even more primitive than Linux's old sysV-init. Checking out the docs it looks like a trip back to the 1970s.

Is service management with a simple graph of dependencies really that hard? Come on. Good programmers solve these kinds of problems all the time on a much larger scale. We've got OSS hackers building distributed systems, fault tolerant databases, cryptocurrency, and 'permanent decentralized web' protocols and we can't solve init?

[Freaky]

> Unfortunately FreeBSD's init system seems at first glance to be even more primitive than Linux's old sysV-init.

You're better off looking at the rc system[1]. It leaves a lot to be desired, but it's much better than the sysV approach.

There are ongoing efforts to modernise things a bit. The 4Q 2015 report[2] mentions a few.

I like the look of nosh, personally.

1: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/rc-scripting/index.h... 2: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-announce/2016-Fe...

[api]

A clean OS with clean simple package management and a modernized init system that isn't a tower of babel would really have me sold.

[sigusr1]

Void linux is great.

[JdeBP]

> Checking out the docs it looks like a trip back to the 1970s.

The BSD world never adopted System 5 init, and can indeed trace its mechanism back to Version 7. Ironically, however, that init has outlived both System 5 init and its van Smoorenburg clone.

* http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/in...

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11550802

[ivl]

Well, there's nosh[0] to be excited about. It could turn out to be a very nice init system.

0: https://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2015-07-2015-09.h...

[justinsaccount]

> WUT?

> (goes and downloads FreeBSD...)

Do you always switch operating systems based on lies you see in hacker news comments?

[dijit]

>Lies

What part is a lie? they did break userspace and they expected other projects to bend to their whim.

[groovy2shoes]

And they've done it so many times now that I've lost count.