Poetteringware seems to be highly praised by mostly young people who would like Linux to be a Windows clone. People who understands Unix concepts tends to dislike it.
I'm pushing 50 and have been using one kind of unix or another for nearly 30 years, so I like to think (a) I have a pretty good grasp on 'Unix concepts' and (b) if I'm a 'young people' why do my knees hurt so much.
As such, my opinion on systemd is the old ways weren't all that great and I'm glad the youth are trying to improve things.
DNS + NTP are completely optional, but you get really good integration with systemd-networkd's DHCP client if you use them. Switching network is completely seamless, and the resolver updates fully automatically (direct DNS and NTP are blocked in many networks, sadly). Also, you get something that works out of the box, with essentially 0 configuration. You can't even install a system today over the internet without setting the time, and systemd-timesyncd does it with 0 configuration.
Other than "sysvinit based init had horrific shell scripts with 100 lines of repeated nonsense", given that almost every alternative to systemd which still uses shell scripts needs around 2 lines of shell per service (including the shebang) what exactly is the issue with shell scripts (if all they do is run a wrapper which sets up the environment of a program or the program itself)?
> - no forking services
When I used archlinux these were extremely common and I used archlinux as recently as last year.
> - logging and service management is tightly coupled (this is arguably good with some bad parts, required CPU for logging with systemd is not great)
So runit handles spawning a log daemon before the service is started to ensure all log entries are kept and comes with a really simple yet extremely powerful log daemon (but obviously you can use almost anything else including cat if you want). It manages to integrate logging tightly into service supervision while being maximally flexible and decoupled. What do you think about this?
bigbillheck|4 years ago
As such, my opinion on systemd is the old ways weren't all that great and I'm glad the youth are trying to improve things.
StreamBright|4 years ago
For me there are 3 things that SystemD gets right:
- no shell scripts for service configurations
- no forking services (no need for daemon mode anymore)
- logging and service management is tightly coupled (this is arguably good with some bad parts, required CPU for logging with systemd is not great)
And the rest is just pure madness.
- DNS (but whyt?)
- NTP (but why????)
- system limits (seriously, da f???)
- pid 1 should be a very simple service (More: https://ewontfix.com/14/)
I have spent 25 years on Unix, so I guess I understand the concepts.
larschdk|4 years ago
Arch-TK|4 years ago
Other than "sysvinit based init had horrific shell scripts with 100 lines of repeated nonsense", given that almost every alternative to systemd which still uses shell scripts needs around 2 lines of shell per service (including the shebang) what exactly is the issue with shell scripts (if all they do is run a wrapper which sets up the environment of a program or the program itself)?
> - no forking services
When I used archlinux these were extremely common and I used archlinux as recently as last year.
> - logging and service management is tightly coupled (this is arguably good with some bad parts, required CPU for logging with systemd is not great)
So runit handles spawning a log daemon before the service is started to ensure all log entries are kept and comes with a really simple yet extremely powerful log daemon (but obviously you can use almost anything else including cat if you want). It manages to integrate logging tightly into service supervision while being maximally flexible and decoupled. What do you think about this?
tristan957|4 years ago
dijit|4 years ago
I'm 31 now.