Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by inferiorhuman 2906 days ago
Hint: both sysvinit and BSD init are better. They are more mature, have fewer moving parts, are easier to debug without specialized tools, and are better understood. Plus the decoupled nature of init systems reap bonuses for system stability (unlike systemd).

Having a QR code parser as part of something that's tangentially related to the init system in concept but deeply embedded into systemd in practice is exactly what the post you were replying to is complainig about. It's unnecessarily complex.
1 comments
gsich 2906 days ago
They are not.

>They are more mature

what does that even mean? that they are older? Similar to "modern XYZ" this phrase doesn't mean anything.

You seem to repeat what other people say like the "QR code" without even looking it up.

link
inferiorhuman 2906 days ago
> They are not.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32924335/using-systemd-w...

> The journal is the only mandatory component of systemd outside PID1.

Seems pretty deeply embedded to me.

> what does that even mean? that they are older?

They are older, better understood, and there are fewer substantive bugs (e.g. malformed blob = run service as root).

> You seem to repeat what other people say like the "QR code" without even looking it up.

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October...

Not sure what else you're doing with a QR library, except maybe building tetris (which seems like a bad idea for something purported to be an init system).

link
gsich 2906 days ago
>They are older, better understood, and there are fewer substantive bugs (e.g. malformed blob = run service as root).

You used the same argument ("They are more mature") again. It's still not saying anything.

link
inferiorhuman 2906 days ago
> It's still not saying anything.

Sure it is. An init system should, first and foremost, be stable and well understood. By virtue of its size and youth, systemd is not (at least not by devs and end users).

link
gsich 2906 days ago
But all those words are meaningless. "stable" and "well understood" could also be said of systemd. There is no metric to it. By that logic we could go back to using software from before 20 years, because they are "stable".

I have noticed that systemd is "stable" and "well understood" because I have no problems with it. But would that convince someone else?

link
inferiorhuman 2906 days ago
> But all those words are meaningless. "stable" and "well understood" could also be said of systemd.

Bugs like this:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/05/linux_systemd_grant...

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6077

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9449

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9079

Indicate that systemd interactions aren't particularly well thought out.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/8730

Non-deterministic behavior is exactly what I'd strive to avoid in an init system.

Stuff like this:

https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/how_to_crash_systemd_in_one_...

Indicates both poor understanding of how an init system should work (including basics like privilege separation) and poor stability.

Stuff like this:

https://threatpost.com/linux-systemd-bug-could-have-led-to-c...

Well, I for one do not want my init system to be network accessible.

link
mdekkers 2906 days ago
To be honest, @inferiorhuman keeps providing you with well supported reasoning for his position, whilst your only contribution appears to be "that doesn't meet my personal standards", which is devoid of any meaningful content for the rest of us. I am a committed systemd argument aficionado, and would really like to see a more supported set of arguments from your side. So far, @inferiorhuman is winning this debate.
link