Systemd

Chat about Linux in general
SC23
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:54 am
Location: Asheville North Carolina, US.

Re: Systemd

Post by SC23 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:41 pm

linx255 wrote:SC23, I wasn't saying you were making a statement, just adding questions to your question. Sorry for the confusion. 8)
No Worries.. :)
MALsPa wrote:I've read that Linus Torvalds has systemd on his computers. Debian's going with it. I figure that if it's good enough for Torvalds and Debian, then I'm fine with it too.
If there was ever anything that made me think its ok it would be this...

exploder
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5533
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:50 am
Location: HartfordCity, Indiana USA
Contact:

Re: Systemd

Post by exploder » Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:26 pm

MALsPa, is absolutely right about that. Linus runs Fedora with Xfce on his computers.

User avatar
Flemur
Level 16
Level 16
Posts: 6933
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: Potemkin Village

Re: Systemd

Post by Flemur » Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:10 pm

My 2¢.
I also have Debian Jesse, which uses systemd.
It was quite easy to install sysvinit and keep systemd, with a boot choice between the two,
They boot in the same time and the systemd boot uses about 3M more memory.
Please edit your original post title to include [SOLVED] if/when it is solved!
Your data and OS are backed up....right?
Mint 19.1 Xfce/fluxbox
Manjaro openbox/fluxbox

User avatar
xenopeek
Level 24
Level 24
Posts: 23961
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:58 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Systemd

Post by xenopeek » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:35 am

To best of my knowledge, with sysvinit boot you are still using "systemd"--like systemd-udev and other userland components of your operating system developed by the systemd project, that aren't part of the systemd init component.
Image

User avatar
Fred Barclay
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4204
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:12 am
Location: Bumping around in the bush

Systemd vs sysvinit

Post by Fred Barclay » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:54 am

Can someone explain the whole furor over systemd, please? Why do some folks hate it, why do others like it, and is it even needed?
Most of the "info" on the internet consists more of flame wars than any actual useful knowledge, so I have little idea of what the real issues are.
Thanks. :)

And on a side note, have you heard of Devuan? It aims to be Debian stripped of all systemd code. Sounds interesting. Based on the little I know I don't care for Debian deciding to go with systemd, so Devuan might be a promising distro.

EDIT: I had this in a new topic, but I guess an admin just moved it here. Didn't see this topic existed. :oops:
But still, as much info as possible would be appreciated.
Image
"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
- Albert Einstein

User avatar
/dev/urandom
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Systemd vs sysvinit

Post by /dev/urandom » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:41 am

Fred Barclay wrote:I have little idea of what the real issues are.
systemd hooks into everything, that's the main problem.
Linux is not the only answer! :: eD2k/Kad mirrors for Linux Mint and LMDE.
Users who misspell "Windows" as "Windoze" intentionally will be considered stupid.

Image

User avatar
Flemur
Level 16
Level 16
Posts: 6933
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: Potemkin Village

Re: Systemd

Post by Flemur » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:50 pm

Why all the hate for system.d?

I think it's a combination of "Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small" and the "not invented here" syndrome.

I used it under Arch and on Debian (testing) with an option to boot the same install with either systemd or sysvinit; no noticeable difference in speed or usability (about the same for upstart - can't see the point). Theoretically systemd does "too much" rather than being modular.

Anti-systemd rants like http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=120652 tend to make me like systemd, tho given a choice I'd prefer that everything use sysvinit (the Luddite version).
Please edit your original post title to include [SOLVED] if/when it is solved!
Your data and OS are backed up....right?
Mint 19.1 Xfce/fluxbox
Manjaro openbox/fluxbox

thunderkiss65
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:04 pm

Re: Systemd

Post by thunderkiss65 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:52 pm

I just installed slackware on my laptop. I will put freebsd on my home server, and this desktop will probably go to slackware after Linux Mint falls. If devuan looks feasible by then, I will use that.

mike acker
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:29 pm
Location: Kalamazoo, MI

Re: Systemd

Post by mike acker » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:44 pm

the thing that worries me is the discord:
reference: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/07 ... o_systemd/
It doesn't help that systemd's main developers aren't known for being the easiest to work with. Linus Torvalds once called systemd coder Kay Sievers a "f*cking prima donna," and systemd creator Lennart Poettering has said he doesn't want anything to do with the Linux kernel development community, which he thinks is "awful."
corporate control is our principle enemy. hopefully systemd is not under control of RHEL or Canonical . hopefully systemd will remain in the Linux tradition, -- free and open . if it does i'm good with it.

as I see things the most important thing that need to happen in and around the 'Net and IT generally -- is (1) focus on using only secure operating software, and (2) shift to a paradigm of authenticating transmittals -- not just software distributions but eMails, tax returns, commercial stuff generally.

Secure Computing in a Compromised Environment depends on our ability to offer our identification and credentials in public and at the same time retain private control of same. Public Key Encryption offers this ability -- thanks to Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman . not everyone in the IT business is in favor of security. but I think we are at a tipping point -- where we will all realize that commercial processing on the 'Net is not practical without security.

security starts when you press the power switch and relies on a secure o/s thereafter.
¡Viva la Resistencia!

User avatar
excollier
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Donegal, Ireland

Re: Systemd

Post by excollier » Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:09 am

I agree wholly on your take about corporate control.
I flagged this fear on this forum and others a while back but was dismissed as paranoid by some. I don't want to see Linux become just a component of the systemd OS and I don't want to see it at the mercy of the likes of RHEL, who couldn't care less about the ordinary desktop Linux user.
Registered Linux user #557695
Mint 17.3 XFCE &Debian 9.1 XFCE dual boot (desktop), Raspbian Jessie (Raspberry Pi)
Windows 10 VM (I know) so I can work from home.

fraxinus_63
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: Systemd

Post by fraxinus_63 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:54 am

Does anyone know what Richard Stallman thinks about systemd?

User avatar
excollier
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Donegal, Ireland

Re: Systemd

Post by excollier » Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:01 am

Can't imagine he'd be ecstatic about it..
Registered Linux user #557695
Mint 17.3 XFCE &Debian 9.1 XFCE dual boot (desktop), Raspbian Jessie (Raspberry Pi)
Windows 10 VM (I know) so I can work from home.

mike acker
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:29 pm
Location: Kalamazoo, MI

Re: Systemd

Post by mike acker » Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:15 am

excollier wrote:I agree wholly on your take about corporate control.
I flagged this fear on this forum and others a while back but was dismissed as paranoid by some. I don't want to see Linux become just a component of the systemd OS and I don't want to see it at the mercy of the likes of RHEL, who couldn't care less about the ordinary desktop Linux user.
as I understand things "systemd" is a C program that supersedes what is apparently a collection of scripts currently used by SysVinit

I found this discussion related to Debian -- which is my Distro preference

from what I read it appears that systemd is a needed improvement. we just don't need it to be a contentious problem . I think we can rely on the Linux community to resolve that though: the originators will not be allowed exclusive control of this critter.

I am going to implement Clem's new LMDE/MINT LTS as soon as he's satisfied with the testing . I'm an old retired fellow and I have no intention of getting into the init scripts; whatever Clem comes up with will be fine with me . I suspect some of the objectors may be folks that like to tamper with the init scripts but this is just a guess on my part .
¡Viva la Resistencia!

User avatar
MartyMint
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:50 pm

Re: Systemd

Post by MartyMint » Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:34 pm

excollier wrote:Can't imagine he'd be ecstatic about it..

Everything offends Stallman...

:roll:

User avatar
amity88
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:16 am
Location: Bangalore, India

Re: Systemd

Post by amity88 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:53 am

Postby JusTertii on Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:07 am

Why all the hate for system.d?
JusTertii,
I'm one of those people who dislike systemd. Yes, I have used it briefly while I was running Arch but I prefer the regular init system. These are my reasons

1)Journald : This is one thing I really hate about it. Unlike the traditional logging system that logs into text format, this thing logs onto a binary. Now, while everything works, it's rather convenient BUT when your system breaks down and you're unable to access the files directly, it's much easier to have textual logs that are easy to read. There is a workaround involving syslog but why beat around the bush like that?

2)Monolithic culture : One great thing about Linux is how everything is modular, even in the lower systems. For e.g. with the case of logs, I have a choice to use syslog, rsyslog or none. If I want to run extra services, I can add them in init.d. With systemd, it comes as one big monolithic bundle, sorta like how Windows is.
This deviates from the Unix convention of having small programs that does one thing well, introduces unnecessary extra steps and takes away some of our choice.
Yesterday is just a memory, tomorrow is just speculation.... What's real is this moment right now.

fraxinus_63
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: Systemd

Post by fraxinus_63 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:13 am

Thanks to everyone for their contributions to an informative thread about what has become a very emotive topic. I have seen the very heated discussions going on on the Debian and PCLinuxOS forums and not known what to make of it all - especially at a time when another topic under discussion in the Linux community is the extent to which RH and other big corporations now contribute to the kernel.

Looking at it from a non-tech POV (in other words, leaving aside the excellent points made by @amity88), my main concern is to feel confident that systemd could not be used to build in "back doors" to people's systems.

User avatar
xenopeek
Level 24
Level 24
Posts: 23961
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:58 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Systemd

Post by xenopeek » Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:34 pm

fraxinus_63 wrote:my main concern is to feel confident that systemd could not be used to build in "back doors" to people's systems.
It's free software, as defined by the FSF (LGPL license), and developed collaboratively in the open (using git). It can be audited by anybody at any moment, and thus you can build it from source yourself (if you don't trust your distro's binaries).

There are at least 25 developers with commit access; employed by multiple companies but also independent developers. Around 1/3rd of those are employed by Red Hat, with multiple not starting out at Red Hat but being hired by Red Hat to enable them to continue their work on the systemd project. There are over 400 contributing developers.

The systemd project is striving to build a common userland for the OS (like the Unixes have); init system is but one component of the systemd project.
Image

JusTertii
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Systemd

Post by JusTertii » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:51 pm

What do you think of debian's reasons for switching?
(From Mike's link above)


Systemd is becoming the de facto standard init system for Linux. It replaces the venerable SysV init with a clean and efficient design, and brings a stream of new functionality that makes the life of users, administrators and packagers easier. It is better than existing alternatives for all of Debian’s current use cases:

Application and infrastructure servers benefit from reliable and easy service management, cleaner dependencies, service monitoring, security features and global system integration.
Desktops, laptops and session servers benefit from session management, multi-seat, unified system interfaces, as well as integration with udev, D-Bus and other system services.
Embedded systems benefit from speed improvements, shell-less design, ability to remove optional components, and lower memory footprint.

Systemd represents a leap in terms of functionality, one that is comparable to Debian’s existing improvements over other operating systems. People are starting to expect this functionality when running Linux, and missing it could, in the long term, make Debian lose its purpose.

...

Systemd is not just init. It unifies, in fewer lines of code, everything that is related to starting services and managing session groups: user login, cron jobs, network services (inetd), virtual TTY management… Having a single system to handle all of that allows us to remove a lot of cruft, and to use less memory on the system.
...
Comparison with other init systems

sysvinit + insserv

Sysvinit was never designed to cope with the dynamic/event-based architecture of the current Linux kernel. The only reason why we still use it today is the cost of a migration.

Sysvinit/insserv has very little C code, but the real code size must take shell scripts into account. These scripts come in huge numbers, contain bugs and are hard to maintain.
Debugging an init script is a tedious task. It is much faster to write a working systemd unit file than to debug an existing System V init script.
Sysvinit is insufficient for desktops, mostly because of missing features such as the D-Bus interfaces. But the real problems arise on big server setups, where Debian is losing ground because of its antiquated init system. On these systems, you need fine service management, process monitoring, reliable dependencies, complex device setups and proper event handling.

Upstart

Upstart was a huge improvement over sysvinit, and Debian should have switched to it years ago. Now that systemd is available and well-tested, however, it cannot sustain the comparison. Upstart suffers from an improper design which replaces dependencies by purely event-driven actions, and its process tracking is implemented using the wrong tool (ptrace). It would be hard work to provide all the features systemd integrates on top of upstart, and its community, limited in size by Canonical’s policy, seems neither willing nor able to develop them.
@amity88 -- given this information from the debian devs, do you still stand by:
amity88 wrote: 2)Monolithic culture : One great thing about Linux is how everything is modular, even in the lower systems. For e.g. with the case of logs, I have a choice to use syslog, rsyslog or none. If I want to run extra services, I can add them in init.d. With systemd, it comes as one big monolithic bundle, sorta like how Windows is.
This deviates from the Unix convention of having small programs that does one thing well, introduces unnecessary extra steps and takes away some of our choice.
xenopeek wrote: It's free software, as defined by the FSF (LGPL license), and developed collaboratively in the open (using git). It can be audited by anybody at any moment, and thus you can build it from source yourself (if you don't trust your distro's binaries).
Xenopeek, I understand what your point is, but it still doesn't guarantee anything. It's sort of like the maxim that "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". Sounds good in theory, but it simply doesn't marry with reality. We just don't have enough eyes to even approimate this, and as such have to hope the eyes we do have are looking in the right places. A case that comes to mind is the heartbleed vulnerability -- from what I recall, that was an open ssl weakness that wasn't exposed for a number of years.

User avatar
amity88
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:16 am
Location: Bangalore, India

Re: Systemd

Post by amity88 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:59 am

@JusTertii,

I was aware of the things you quoted, they just state what I mentioned in more detail :)
Application and infrastructure servers benefit from reliable and easy service management, cleaner dependencies, service monitoring, security features and global system integration.
Desktops, laptops and session servers benefit from session management, multi-seat, unified system interfaces, as well as integration with udev, D-Bus and other system services.
Embedded systems benefit from speed improvements, shell-less design, ability to remove optional components, and lower memory footprint.
It unifies, in fewer lines of code, everything that is related to starting services and managing session groups: user login, cron jobs, network services (inetd), virtual TTY management… Having a single system to handle all of that allows us to remove a lot of cruft, and to use less memory on the system.
This is what I was talking about earlier when I said it was one big monolith. I don't want a single unified system with a fixed number of 'cruft', I prefer to adjust that depending on my needs.
Sysvinit/insserv has very little C code, but the real code size must take shell scripts into account.
Systemd represents a leap in terms of functionality, one that is comparable to Debian’s existing improvements over other operating systems. People are starting to expect this functionality when running Linux, and missing it could, in the long term, make Debian lose its purpose.
I agree again, scripts are definitely gonna be slower compared to a compiled program BUT the former can be edited much more easily. The logs are in a binary format as I had mentioned earlier, that would also contribute to the speed BUT it also makes it harder to view/make changes in a non-standard way (e.g. when you're diagnosing the logs of a crashed system or when you're modifying the init system itself) I prefer the latter over minor speed gains during bootup.

So yes, I still stick with my views. I might experiment with systemd again in the future but I have a clear preference for init.
It's sort of like the maxim that "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". Sounds good in theory, but it simply doesn't marry with reality.
I agree with this, there maybe many eyes but it doesn't ensure that obscure parts of the code would be audited. Also, even if someone did do a cursory glance through it, they may not detect a hidden vulnerability unless they were really good at it. Finally, I think that code changes happen so often that it makes auditing hard.
Yesterday is just a memory, tomorrow is just speculation.... What's real is this moment right now.

User avatar
xenopeek
Level 24
Level 24
Posts: 23961
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:58 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Systemd

Post by xenopeek » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:58 am

JusTertii wrote:I understand what your point is, but it still doesn't guarantee anything. It's sort of like the maxim that "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". Sounds good in theory, but it simply doesn't marry with reality. We just don't have enough eyes to even approimate this, and as such have to hope the eyes we do have are looking in the right places. A case that comes to mind is the heartbleed vulnerability -- from what I recall, that was an open ssl weakness that wasn't exposed for a number of years.
This is such a null argument... You can power off your computer then, because what software on your computer can you trust to not have backdoors, unless you wrote it yourself :)

Difference between OpenSSL at time of Heartbleed and systemd is that there was no funding for the OpenSSL developers at the time, so all work was done as "hobby" by them in the spare hours. A lot of companies woke up after Heartbleed, understanding that without funding the free software, they depend on for their businesses, can't be maintained at the level they need to securely run their businesses (and Heartbleed cost money to a lot of companies to fix, would have cost less to sponsor developers and audits).

After Heartbleed the Linux Foundation organized the Core Infrastructure Initiative to get funding for critical projects like OpenSSL and OpenSSH. Besides this funding two full-time developers for OpenSSL, it's funded the Open Crypto Audit Project to audit the OpenSSL source code.

systemd already has backing from multiple companies (besides Red Hat, there's Intel, IBM, Samsung, and many more). While the two core developers are currently employed by Red Hat, systemd is a free software project developed collaboratively in the open on freedesktop.org (along with many other free software projects http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/). The source code is at freedesktop.org, the mailing lists are there, the bug tracker is there, and the IRC channel is on freenode.net. I don't understand the Red Hat hate, or how all these companies employing developers to work on systemd is somehow a reasons to suspect those companies of building backdoors... With free software, that seems it would run counter to the interests of those companies.

But yeah, you can keep going in circles that there "aren't enough eyes on <insert any open source project here>," or that enough eyes on the code don't equate with it being secure. That's your prerogative :wink:
Image

Locked

Return to “Chat about Linux”