Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch

Thu Oct 23 01:24:15 UTC 2014

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Israel G. Lugo <israel.lugo at lugosys.com> wrote:
>
> For example, I'm very interested in NTP and accurate timekeeping --
> mostly as a personal hobby, but it's been useful at work as well. I for
> one would definitely not consider NTP one of those "details" that just
> "come with the bootup process".

As you can see in another email I posted, it's trivially easy to
disable systemd's NTP implementation and replace it with another.

The same goes for systemd's DHCP server, as far as I know there's no
distribution using it by default yet.  Fedora is still using
NetworkManager,  I think that RHEL 7 defaults to the same network
scripts that have always been used, although it's very easy to switch
to NetworkManager if that's what you want.

So a lot of the whining you see about systemd "forcing" a NTP or DHCP
server on you is hyperbole by people that have read a few articles on
slashdot/reddit/whatever and take that as gospel.

> I did find it interesting, however, what you mentioned in another email,
> about systemd implementing certain isolation features such as separate
> filesystem namespaces and so on. That may be very useful.

Yes, indeed, very useful.

> I think the main point that we could hopefully all agree on here, is
> that it would be very difficult to have a single "one size fits all"
> solution. The requirements and concerns of the desktop, for example, are
> simply too different from those of the server or router space.

I have found the "desktop" vs. "server" arguments with respect to
systemd unconvincing.  I find many/most of the features of systemd
useful in both contexts.

I think that the problem with the desktop/server dichotomy is that
servers are no longer what they used to be.  Servers used to be these
things that sat in the back room and would reboot once or twice a year
when a kernel upgrade needed to be applied.

With the advent of "the cloud" and related technologies servers have
become much more dynamic and then the advantages of systemd become
much more obvious.

> systemd,
> for better or for worse, can't be the one magic bullet. Great or
> terrible as though it may be, I don't much like the total break in
> compatibility (correct me if I'm wrong).

"total break in compatibility" is a bit much, as the systemd
developers went to great lengths to make sure that init scripts
continue to work pretty much as you would hope them to under systemd.

> I'm not saying SysV is all that
> good, but there are other replacements, and new ones can be designed,
> but don't make it so that everyone-has-to-use-yours-or-else!

No one forced Debian to adopt systemd except Debian.  If Debian does
go through with the switch no one is forcing you to stick with Debian.

> I guess we have GNOME to thank for that...

Well, I guess the Gnome developers saw some value in systemd
integration that others don't.  There are other desktop environments
out there.

> And that's what troubles me the most:
> the lack of choice that seems to be creeping up, with everyone just
> ganging up and jumping to systemd like the floor is on fire. I'm with
> Jay Ashworth on this one: what gives??

Somehow I doubt that Lennart Poettering has the hypnotoad (ALL HAIL
THE HYPNOTOAD!) in his pocket.  I don't think that Lennart Poettering
is a billionaire and can afford to bribe everyone in charge of all of
the distributions (and I'm sure that most of them wouldn't take one
anyway).

Why do people keep assuming some sort of evil conspiracy on the part
of the systemd developers and refuse to believe that systemd is
becoming the default because the right people in the right places have
been convinced of systemd's technical benefits over sysvinit?

The reason that there's lack of choice is because the people that
don't want systemd haven't stepped up to do the work and create their
own distribution.

-- 
Jeff Ollie