[ChuckMcM]

   > The author of this piece makes the classic mistake 
   > of equating the init system as the process manager 
   > and process supervisor. 

I think it is a bit more subtle than that. The author makes the mistake of inferring an architecture from observed behavior and fails to ascertain where the warts come from, the architecture or the implementation. They aren't the only one, its a common problem. The result though is kind like playing 'architecture telephone' where each person implements what they think is the architecture implied and ends up with something subtly different than intended. The result is a hodgepodge of features around various parts of the system.

In the interest of full disclosure I must admit I was on duty when AT&T and Sun were creating the unholy love child of System V and BSD, I'm sorry.

The architecture, as bespoke by AT&T system engineers, was that process 1 was a pseudo process which configured the necessary services and devices which were appropriate for an administrator defined level of operation. Aka a 'run level.' I think they would have liked the systemd proposal, but they would no doubt take it completely out of the process space. I am sure they would have wanted it to be some sort of named stream into the inner consciousness of the kernel which could configure the events system so that the desired running configuration was made manifest. They always hated the BSD notion that init was just the first 'shell process' which happened to kick off various processes that made for a multi-user experience.

Originally users were just like init, in that you logged in and everything you did was a subprocess of your original login shell. It was a very elegant system, root's primal shell spawned getty, and getty would spawn a shell for a user when they logged in, everything from that point on would be owned by the user just like everything that happened before was owned by root. The user's login shell logged out and everything they had done got taken down and resources reclaimed. When the root shell (init) logged out all resources got reclaimed and the system halted.

But Linux, like SunOS before it, serves two masters. The server which has some pretty well defined semantics and the "desktop user" which has been influenced a whole bunch by microcomputer operating systems like Windows.

I wasn't the owner of the init requirements document, I think Livsey was, the important thing was that it was written in the context of a bigger systems picture, and frankly systemd doesn't have that same context. I think that is what comes across as confusion.

[Alupis]

Getting tired over all the systemd hate. If you don't like it, don't use it. Instead of complaining and making useless-by-design wrappers and/or dumbed-down-versions, why not focus your efforts on making a new better init system and convincing people they should use it instead. systemd isn't final - it's software, and will come and go.

Not to mention, most of the systemd hate seems to be spread by only two main sources now, and both cite each other as sources (ironic a little).[1]

[1] http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/66417/systemd-haters-bust...

systemd was really designed with servers in mind, and really does bring a lot to the table for server admins.

[uselessdguy]

The "new better init system" already exists. Several of them, in fact. The only difference? They have no intention of engaging in any shady realpolitik, or consolidating functionality unrelated to their core purpose.

Jupiter Broadcasting are an unreliable source, to say the least. I did watch that episode. When you use such pristine arguments as "Someone reimplemented systemd's D-Bus APIs, therefore systemd is portable!" (much like the Windows API is portable, because Wine exists) and claim that systemd is a "manufactured controversy" while responding to easy straw man arguments, there is a term for that kind of person: a shill.

I was also very amused by the Linux Action Show's coverage of uselessd. They spent the entire time whining about the name, thinking it makes fun of the systemd developers, when in fact it's making fun of ourselves. They also got mad over the use of the word "cruft" and later called us "butthurt BSD users".

Good to see that you bring some new insights, however. Very mature and enlightening.

[Alupis]

Quite frankly, if this is the attitude one can expect from the uselessd developers... then I think this conversation is moot.

If a truly better init system already exists, then people who care strongly and/or have very specific use-cases where that init system excels exceptionally, then they will use it. Nobody is married to systemd.

One must also look at how many industry heavyweights are behind systemd now (even Canonical). I'm certain they have considered the pros and cons to systemd much more extensively than all of the armchair quarterbacks appearing in this thread. Perhaps you personally dislike systemd for what you think are good reasons, but know you are in the minority now (you weren't always).

Bottom line -- systemd is targeting servers, everything else is tertiary. Don't like it, then don't use it. But quit using every possible chance to spread needless hate. systemd is not an assault on you personally. No matter how loud you scream -- systemd is not going anywhere for the time being.

[vezzy-fnord]

You're not even addressing any argument against systemd at all. You're just presenting a consolation:

"Hey, everybody, look at all the people using systemd! They must know better than you, so shut the fuck up and use whatever you want - no one is stopping you! By the way, systemd is meant for servers, even though the developers have never said anything like that and have made it clear that it's meant for all use cases."

In this regard, you are little more than a troll. Or a person who thinks popularity means quality. Both, even.

[B5geek]

<quote>systemd was really designed with servers in mind, and really does bring a lot to the table for server admins.</quote>

Which is totally ironic too in that the server-admins hate it. (speaking just for myself here=) )

I am a sysadmin of a medium sized data-center. I am in charge of 100-150 servers at any given point. None of the changes that systemd 'fixes' benefit me or my systems. Boot times? What's the point when it takes 10-minutes for the drive-arrays to spin-up? Logging? I pray a system never dies and I have to access those rotten binary log-files from a live-cd. Network changes/configuration? Nope, every server is configured with static network configs. Power Management? Ha! That's funny. Downtime in minutes costs more then electricity does in a a month.

I could go on. But there is one major caveat: As a laptop user, systemd is fantastic.

As my Debian servers need to and/or get updated and start requiring systemd then I will just migrate them to OpenBSD. This process has already begun.

Systemd is changing things for the wrong group of people. Mobile/Desktop users have alot of wiggle room and areas that need improvement. Server admins need stability; in software, hardware, (script) syntaxes, and interfaces. Users need everything that systemd offers.

I will concede that systemd might be a good fit with Docker, and I am looking into that too; but I guarantee you it will be on it's own box and not homogeneous with the rest of my network.

[digi_owl]

All of Poettering's projects seems to be lifted straight from OSX.

Ran into a recent interview where he kept referring back to the OSX sound system when talking about Pulseaudio, and Avahi is zeroconf/bonjour. And with Systemd he constantly makes references to Launchd, the OSX "init".

BTW, Red Hat just now announced that the future of the company would be Openstack and the cloud. Fits perfectly with the push for containerization in Systemd.

More and more i get the impression that the "developers" mentioned as benefiting from Systemd are the likes of the Reddit crew. Reddit pretty much could not exist without Amazon's cloud services.

Meaning that for Poettering the future is two things, cloud computing and cloning OSX. And given the number of web monkeys that seems to sport a Mac, i am not surprised at all.

I just wish that they could avoid infecting the rest of the Linux environment...

[ChuckMcM]

I realize you were speaking in generalities but to be specific I don't hate systemd. I do dislike "emergent" architectures but that is more of a OCD systems analysis curse I have to deal with.

This statement, "systemd isn't final - it's software, and will come and go.", is the one that most captures my angst. And you can replace 'systemd' with 'linux' or 'gstreamer' or 'webkit' or 'gcc' or 'fsck' for that matter. Not only are they not 'final' but what they would be able to do if they were 'final' is left unspecified. That puts the system on the DAG equivalent of a drunken walk. And users don't seem to like it when their systems are evolving randomly.

I really enjoyed the early RFC process of the IETF because we could argue over what was and was not the responsibility for a protocol, what it had to do and what was optional, and what it would achieve when it was 'done.' Then people compared what they had coded up. When the architecture is the code and the code is the spec, my experience is that sometimes we lose track of where it was we were going in the first place.

[loudmax]

To avoid using systemd in practice basically means switching distributions, or switching away from Linux entirely. Depending on your setup, this may be far from trivial.

I think systemd has a lot going for it, and it's been pretty stable on my Arch notebook, but I'm not too thrilled with the way it takes over so many tasks at once and eschews text log files. What's frustrating is that I didn't have much choice in the matter. Yeah, I could switch to another distro, but since Red Hat, Suse, and now Debian and Ubuntu are switching to systemd, that leaves Gentoo or BSD or something. Which are perfectly fine in their own right, but that's pretty drastic if I just want to avoid systemd.

[Alupis]

> but since Red Hat, Suse, and now Debian and Ubuntu are switching to systemd

With so many heavyweight linux enterprise companies jumping on systemd, one must wonder what consideration they have given the issue? I'd wager, a lot. Also, note that systemd is really designed with servers in mind, so it's not surprising for a desktop/laptop distro user to find it bothersome (it wasn't designed with your use-case in mind). With that said, the beauty of Arch is you can yank systemd out and go with whatever init system you desire.

[digi_owl]

RH just announced that their future will be cloud computing (Openstack). I think Ubuntu is following right behind. Suse i can't comment on as i haven't followed that distro in ages. Debian is more of a puzzle, but i suspect it was a case of "don't have the resources to be contrarian".

As for the Systemd design. I Think it started with Poettering drooling over OSX Launchd (his other projects also seem to be straight OSX feature clones), that since then has been hitched on the cloud computing push within RH.

In essence, the kind of server that Systemd seems to favor are cloud computing instances where storage and networking can come and go as the back end gets configured for new needs.

Traditional static big iron and clusters don't really benefit much from the "adaptive" nature of Systemd. If those breaks they usually have a hot reserve taking over while the admins get to work figuring out what broke.

[johnny22]

try reading the actual discussion when systemd was being proposed to be used by default. It wasn't because "don't have the resources to be contrarian".

[vezzy-fnord]

systemd is designed for all use cases in mind. I have yet to see any sentiment that it's specifically for servers, desktops or embedded. Lennart's "Biggest Myths" would have your statement decried as an utter falsehood.

[imanaccount247]

Characterizing criticism as "hate" is fallacious and serves the opposite function of what you wish. People see support of systemd as being just ignorance and whining. If you want to support systemd, then do it with actual arguments.