[mises]

People are probably less upset because it doesn't take the "systemd all the things" approach of getting rid of huge chunks of old stuff for what is ostensibly an init system. I don't have much of an issue with systemd (except binary logging; I hate that) and just put up with it, but the reasons for which people objected to systemd don't seem to extend to this.

[Spivak]

The only connection that systemd-resolved has to the init system is the name prefix. Seems odd to praise the BSDs for developing everything in a single repo but faulting systemd for the same approach.

[throw0101a]

> Seems odd to praise the BSDs for developing everything in a single repo but faulting systemd for the same approach.

I think it is more accurate to say that the (supposed) problem with systemd's approach is actually tight coupling as opposed to a single repo.

OpenSSH, OpenSMTP, OpenBGPD, LibreSSL, Mandoc, the recent Unwind, etc, may all be in the same repo, but none depending on each other. Try taking systemd-resolved (or journald) and running it on its own.

If the various systemd "components" were actual components that could be swapped out for something else there would be fewer complains IMHO.

systemd-as-init-replacement is/was fine. systemd-as-kitchen-sink is where things went sideways.

[CameronNemo]

Chrome OS runs systemd-journald on top of Upstart. Not that such a setup is supported or encouraged.

One of my main gripes about resolved is the D-Bus interface. Lennart needs to remove his lips from that protocol's ass.

[Spivak]

> Lennart needs to

And replace it with what? I genuinely don't know anything that exists right now that could replace it. Linux and ecosystem have a lot of IPC primitives but very few usable systems: I know of dbus and ip.

[mises]

I didn't praise them for that. It's more that I don't like the systemd way of making everything systemd. The difference is that the stuff openbsd develops is largely standalone applications, whereas systemd wants to take over the world and replace everything.

This makes it very hard to tweak a system, and I would again bring up the logging issue. Systemd-journald stores files in binary format, which is a pain. I was working on something where I accidentally bricked the system (VM, thankfully) due to configuring some in-depth security stuff. I mounted the disk and tried to read off the log, but couldn't. It's also a pain to replace it, and non-systemd alternatives are becoming increasingly poorly supported.

Systemd wants to take over temporary files, journaling, and much, much more. Many of the implementations are imperfect. That's fine; I understand it's hard to get that much right. Which is why I wish they made it easier to replace systemd components or didn't use it.

The init itself (units etc.) is good, and I actually like it. I just wish they got that polished, then made another, separate project if they thought they could do another piece better.

[Spivak]

> I mounted the disk and tried to read off the log, but couldn't.

I mean yes, you need something to parse the logs and turn them into human readable text, but the logs are perfectly readable.

journalctl --file /mnt/var/log/journal/`</mnt/etc/machine-id`/system.journal | my-favorite-log-reader

A lot, dare I say most, of the parts of systemd actually are optional or do nothing until you use them like systemd-machined.

[structural]

The assumption here is that the machine you're using to do the log analysis is also a Linux machine that uses systemd (and thus has a journalctl binary). This is not necessarily true.

A lot of the annoyance that some people have with the systemd crowd is that these kind of assumptions are made all over the place. The actual software is not bad (I really do prefer dealing with systemd units than writing shell scripts for each service) but it can be hard to get past.

[mises]

Exactly. I was doing a competition that required me to run windows with a linux vm on top of it. This means I couldn't easily do it. Ended up having to use WSL, which is much more hassle than I ought to have to go through.

I agree as well with the unit comment; they're great. But I just can't get past the plans for world domination.

[viraptor]

I'm not sure I see the problem. At scale, you're logging into an aggregator anyway. If part of your job is log recovery/analysis then you need to get the right tools working (docker works almost everywhere now, so that should solve it). In a small environment, I'm you can find a way to run a VM somewhere temporarily.

[mises]

I was doing security on a VM image. I wasn't doing anything at scale, and wasn't doing the initial deployment. Log recovery/analysis wasn't the job, it was a necessary component thereof. Docker makes no sense when I'm doing OS-level hardening on a VM.

[yarrel]

The BSDs are operating systems. SystemD hasn't yet admitted that it is.

[chousuke]

Hasn't admitted?

As far as I know, it is an explicitly stated goal of the systemd project to provide an integrated (compared to whatever each distribution assembled together to provide one) base system on top of the Linux kernel with the intent of making the best use of the features provided by the kernel.

It seems to me that Lennart looked at the tightly integrated base system + kernel approach of the BSDs and decided he wanted that for Linux too (in addition to whatever other influences he had), and then he made it happen.

[brohee]

Except it's not tightly integrated on OpenBSD, and that you can replace any component for any reason without the whole thing collapsing.

[genghizkhan]

Fwiw, apart from journald and logind that’s true for systemd as well. You can choose to run nothing other than pid 1 and these two daemons. Everything else is optional.

[_emacsomancer_]

My understanding is that he was influenced in part by launchd.