Discussion of systemd adoption by Debian, openrc, sysvinit

I agree that it isn't the appropriate arena for it, but I don't think the guy was 'trolling'.

I was more interested in the thought process than in the flames when I read it.

I think his bug was 'trolling' in the sense that he didn't actually report a bug. He has valid complaints, but a bug tracker isn't the place for them. The bug was clearly opened to elicit a response, not to identify a bug and track it.

Having said that, he might feel that the bug tracker was the only place he might stand a chance of getting visibility; I have no idea.

What might have been more constructive (and illuminating) would have been to open a bug tracker with a list of all the bugs that haven't been fixed, and request an update.

This......just this.

I happen to think that systemd is a bloated piece of shitware. As I've said previously, it's a nice idea, badly implemented. The code looks like it was created by a 5th grader, puked on by the cat, and then used to wipe someone's arse.

But guess what? Unless I'm willing to dive in and fix it, I really don't have a vote.

That's where the "choice" truly lies. If you don't like what's being done, there's the code; have at it.

And, despite it's not being up to what I would call 'good coding style', nor being implemented in what I think is a proper architectural way, it's really not painful enough for me to be willing to spend my time fixing it.

So, there it is: either fix it, or find someone to fix it. Otherwise, quitcherbitchin'.

The last time I looked at the systemd code was a little over a year ago; I just went and took a gander at some of it, and it seems to have gotten at least somewhat cleaned up. This is good, as it means both that the code is being worked on and that someone actually IS trying to make it maintainable. There's still room for improvement, but that's always the case in any evolving project, so I'm not going to hold that against them.

There were a number of issues when udev first came out, and switching my running systems to udev was a major PITA. Now that the switch is done, I find having udev quite nice. Probably I'll end up in the same boat with systemd; I'm just not ready to jump ship yet. I agree that systemd offers some rather interesting capabilities. In the case of udev, there really didn't seem to be any way to get to what udev offered without ditching the existing system; having worked on OpenRC, I'm not convinced that systemd didn't come about more because of NIH syndrome than a genuine need for something completely new to replace init.

As opposed to what else, exactly?

Ah, ok. I thought you were going to say something like Java. Rust is actually a sensible response.

Problem is basically inertia. If you go to a company and say "I'm a Rust developer" they'll likely look at you cross-eyed. Very few people outside of academia (at least in my experience) even have a working concept of Rust.

You also have to bear in mind that the VAST majority of code for which Rust would be used is already written in C and has to be supported. In most cases, rewriting that code in Rust would be a non-starter. As a consequence, by the time someone gets a chance to do a new project, their Rust skills are, err, rusty, and so they end up saying "I'll just do it in C".

The following posts have been moved here, from the IRC thread.

Unfortunately, Mr Thunder has failed to properly move/merge and can't figure out how to correct his error any better than what you see here. He accidentally merged the posts together before moving them, and it can't be undone.

All of the posts are here in their entirety, so nothing has been lost; [except his self-respect, LOLZ.]

I think you'll find Gizmo agrees, mostly, with what you've said...but he doesn't need my intercession, actually:

Very good points Daerandin. I complete agree with the use of free software. I love the fact that Linux is free and we get to use it for any purpose. I feel lucky and blessed because I don't have to add an extra $100.00 to build a computer and have an operating system.
This is the way it should always have been.
Charge for hardware, provide the basic operating software for free.
Otherwise it would be like selling a digital calculator or watch that doesn't work until you program it.

There are always things to dislike about Linux, but I never criticize how it is made and who makes it. I could suggest something to change, but since I am no programmer, I'm not going to change it myself.

I will never take Linux for-granted and plan to use it indefinitely because of all the resources I can apply it to:

• Productivity
• Gaming
• Design
• Hardware Troubleshooting
• Restoring/Refurbing older computers
• Data Servers/Web Servers
• Secure Web Browsing

Just to name a few...

Daerandin, Booman,

I appreciate your thoughts to the extent that you are correct in your observation regarding the general nature of open source software.

I would, however, point out that at least 3 of the developers (Poettering, Sievers, Hoyer) are RedHat employees. They are PAID to do this stuff. That doesn't make their contributions any less important or impactful, and it is certainly true that RedHat contributes a great deal to the open source community, but this notion of programmers quietly slaving away in the background out of the generosity of their hearts for the greater good of humanity is a bit at odds with reality.

Reality is that they are PAID for their work (in this case) and it is arguable then that there is a certain reasonable expectation on the part of the recipients of their labors. Reality is that Poettering especially spent significant time internally at RedHat lobbying for systemd. Reality is that RedHat is a SIGNIFICANT part of the Linux ecosystem. Reality is that what RedHat does ends up influencing what everyone else does.

But let's leave that aside for the moment (yes, I know I brought it up).

The bottom line here is that systemd, because of its very nature, has a significant impact to the ENTIRE system. It's not like PulseAudio, or even Avahi, where if it fails to come up, you can get into your system and fix it; if systemd croaks, your entire SYSTEM is fscked.

As such, the developers of said system have a responsibility to ensure that the changes they make have minimal impact.

The setting change didn't NEED to be made. The NEED had already been addressed by providing the setting. It's something that SHOULD have been left to the downstream maintainers, or even the system administrators to resolve. While it is absolutely true that a system admin should review the changelog for the patches that are being installed, it is ALSO true that a developer shouldn't be making arbitrary changes to a config file that impacts SO MANY systems. Poettering and Sievers KNOW this; they KNOW how many systems are impacted, just for RedHat alone! That they made this change ANYWAY suggests a level of arrogance and DISRESPECT FOR THE USER that is simply breathtaking, IMO.

The end result of this pattern of behavior could very well be a forking of systemd. Given the pain and angst that is already present around systemd, I do not see that forking it would be a desirable outcome at this point.

Here's what really frustrates me about software development, and developers like Poettering; they have good ideas, but they think that because they have good ideas they can just simply ignore the advice and thoughts of the people who came before. While it is certainly true that as we get older we tend to get less flexible in the way we think about things (it's ALWAYS been done that way, THAT'S why!), there's also the fact that we've already bled on the battlefield and we have the scars to prove it. What this means in a larger context is that, yes, open source software is written (largely) for free, and yes if you don't like it you can always take the source and modify it yourself. This happens frequently because the developer is unresponsive to the needs of the user community. The fact that systemd has gotten this far seems to suggest that despite the reservations of people like me, it addresses what is perceived as a need by the community. It would be a shame to see that thrown away because Lennart and Kay think they can do whatever they want without regard to the consequences for the users.

Do you think there is a chance these paid programmers/developers are just obeying their management? Specially with risk of loosing their jobs?

We all know CEO's can make bad decisions and us peons have to just do as we are told or leave and risk being unemployed.
Honestly I never thought about Linux this way... paid programmers and developers creating software/operating systems that are open source. I think its awesome, but wonder how politics can get in the way...

Like I said... I'm just a "nobody" who love Mint. Until they mess up all the functionality Mint provides for me, I'm sticking with it indefinitely.

I've never felt like I have any impact on politics or powerful rich people. So I do what other peons do... help the peons.

It's always a possibility, but in this case I don't think so.

Like any other human endeavor, and politics frequently DOES get in the way, though it's not USUALLY the corporate kind.

Here's the thing so many people just don't seem to get when they say "I don't have any effect/I don't count/My vote doesn't count": when you are acting alone, your actions generally don't DIRECTLY have an impact, but INDIRECTLY, they can; they can cause OTHER people to act as well, and when PEOPLE act, the results can be wondrous.

Short story to illustrate my point (and in your case, I know I'm preaching to the choir):

I came up to an intersection; the car in front of me was stalled, the person inside obviously having a problem. Because it was a busy intersection I had to wait a full cycle of the light (about a minute) to get through the light. I found a place to park my car and walked back to the lady in the stalled vehicle. By this time the light had cycled about 2 more times, and other traffic had come through as well. In addition, the lady had obviously been stalled for some time, so safe to say by the time I arrived she had been sitting there for something like 10 minutes.

I talked with her briefly, learned that she had simply run out of gas, so figured the first order of business was to get her out of the middle of the road. I got around behind her car and started pushing.

Within 60 SECONDS of me getting behind the car to push, I had 3 other people who had stopped and were helping to push.

We got a gas can, put some gas in the car, and got her on her way. Only took a few minutes, but the point is, SOMEONE had to take action, even alone.

It's not that people don't care; it's not that people don't want to help. In most cases, they either don't know HOW, or they are AFRAID. All they need in most cases is someone to show them the way and allay the fear.

BE that someone. We all have it in us. We just have to DO it.