Debian Debates Systemd Alternatives DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
dlarge6502
-Protest distros- lol, seems like the whole point of a distro to me.
I started using GNU/Linux around ''98. The whole point of a distro is to be different. Thats the point, different selection of packages, different admin tools and in the case of the issues today, different init systems.
A distro is NOT a different wallpaper or fonts or the latest link passed around twitter -because its got a dark mode-. I've seen stagnation in the -distroverse- for a long time now and with the introduction of the horror that is systemd we finally are getting back on our heels and now have real dynamism again. I have had NO reason to switch distro in 20 bloody years. Ubuntu, debian with a different wallpaper and attitude. I know this as I use Debian at home and I admin Ubuntu VM's in my works -cloud-. Trust me, having used Debian for 20 years I can safely say that besides the newer software and differences in release cycle, Ubuntu and Debian are so much like Debian that I only know the difference at the login prompt or when I cat /etc/issue.
Seriously, 20 years with nothing but online arguments, differences on release cycle, different wallpapers. Most distros have settled into a standard form and systemd, horrific as it is to people who care about OS design (FreeBSD has a loaded shotgun on standby to put systemd down the moment it knocks the door) it did one thing right. It messed up the stagnation so that we now have real potential for progress.
From what I can see now, thats s6. s6 is the place we are heading to, systemd is the bad dream and s6 is the real deal. But wait, there are other alternatives.... omg now we have fun!
reply
-Protest distros- lol, seems like the whole point of a distro to me.
I started using GNU/Linux around ''98. The whole point of a distro is to be different. Thats the point, different selection of packages, different admin tools and in the case of the issues today, different init systems.
A distro is NOT a different wallpaper or fonts or the latest link passed around twitter -because its got a dark mode-. I've seen stagnation in the -distroverse- for a long time now and with the introduction of the horror that is systemd we finally are getting back on our heels and now have real dynamism again. I have had NO reason to switch distro in 20 bloody years. Ubuntu, debian with a different wallpaper and attitude. I know this as I use Debian at home and I admin Ubuntu VM's in my works -cloud-. Trust me, having used Debian for 20 years I can safely say that besides the newer software and differences in release cycle, Ubuntu and Debian are so much like Debian that I only know the difference at the login prompt or when I cat /etc/issue.
Seriously, 20 years with nothing but online arguments, differences on release cycle, different wallpapers. Most distros have settled into a standard form and systemd, horrific as it is to people who care about OS design (FreeBSD has a loaded shotgun on standby to put systemd down the moment it knocks the door) it did one thing right. It messed up the stagnation so that we now have real potential for progress.
From what I can see now, thats s6. s6 is the place we are heading to, systemd is the bad dream and s6 is the real deal. But wait, there are other alternatives.... omg now we have fun!
reply
bIametheniIe
I've never heard someone call distros without systemd as -protest distros- and say the people that maintain those distros want to force users to use non-systemd inits. It seems like a weird thing to say since it implies linux distros are in of themselves -protest distros- since they're not Windows or macOS and the people of that run those distros want to force users to use systemd on their linux distro. Just because Redhat says the debates around systemd is settled doesn't make it so. There's something ironic about a multi billion dollar company saying what is the default and pressuring other distros into using the default aka systemd. The whole video is quite ironic.
I use runit and don't really have much of an issue with systemd other than it caused me problems often. It is nice to have options outside of systemd and there are, but it's disingenous to call those that use OpenRC or runit as -protest distros.- Systemd runs in user-space while the kernel does not, no? Apples and oranges
reply
I've never heard someone call distros without systemd as -protest distros- and say the people that maintain those distros want to force users to use non-systemd inits. It seems like a weird thing to say since it implies linux distros are in of themselves -protest distros- since they're not Windows or macOS and the people of that run those distros want to force users to use systemd on their linux distro. Just because Redhat says the debates around systemd is settled doesn't make it so. There's something ironic about a multi billion dollar company saying what is the default and pressuring other distros into using the default aka systemd. The whole video is quite ironic.
I use runit and don't really have much of an issue with systemd other than it caused me problems often. It is nice to have options outside of systemd and there are, but it's disingenous to call those that use OpenRC or runit as -protest distros.- Systemd runs in user-space while the kernel does not, no? Apples and oranges
reply
zombieman81
My first -Linux- experience was in about 1994/1995, and if you installed a system you intended to use properly the first thing you did after installing with the pre-built -generic- monolithic Linux kernel was to rebuild it with only the features you needed for your system. Based on the number of Linux admins I know this seems a much rarer event so while these days while the kernel is more modular (modprobe and insmod are lovely things to have) we tend to live with these monolithic blobs of code full of support for things we'll never have, but someone MIGHT have when they install a system so it's there... Even now I remember the news report of systemd's DNS resolver having a security report and my reaction was why the .... does systemd have a DNS resolver? I have to know SOME systemd for work but I'm a very happy -init as PID 1- user at home for my main general use laptop because of Devuan...
reply
My first -Linux- experience was in about 1994/1995, and if you installed a system you intended to use properly the first thing you did after installing with the pre-built -generic- monolithic Linux kernel was to rebuild it with only the features you needed for your system. Based on the number of Linux admins I know this seems a much rarer event so while these days while the kernel is more modular (modprobe and insmod are lovely things to have) we tend to live with these monolithic blobs of code full of support for things we'll never have, but someone MIGHT have when they install a system so it's there... Even now I remember the news report of systemd's DNS resolver having a security report and my reaction was why the .... does systemd have a DNS resolver? I have to know SOME systemd for work but I'm a very happy -init as PID 1- user at home for my main general use laptop because of Devuan...
reply
ItsDrike
I disagree with you, while I don't necessarily mind systemd init I disagree that protesting for more options shouldn't be happening. Sure adding that support on your own with a fork is always an option, but it's not an easy one and it's not really suitable for most people that just want to use some alternative init system. I personally think debian should have this alternative option, as should a distro like Arch. Your argument here is essentially: -If you want it, do it yourself, don't protest about it-, which is extremely wrong advice because it's implying that we shouldn't give our opinions to the developers but rather ignore them completely and do things our own way, which only causes more very small and not very well maintained projects rather then a bigger one maintained by thousands of people with that improvement or option you wanted.
reply
I disagree with you, while I don't necessarily mind systemd init I disagree that protesting for more options shouldn't be happening. Sure adding that support on your own with a fork is always an option, but it's not an easy one and it's not really suitable for most people that just want to use some alternative init system. I personally think debian should have this alternative option, as should a distro like Arch. Your argument here is essentially: -If you want it, do it yourself, don't protest about it-, which is extremely wrong advice because it's implying that we shouldn't give our opinions to the developers but rather ignore them completely and do things our own way, which only causes more very small and not very well maintained projects rather then a bigger one maintained by thousands of people with that improvement or option you wanted.
reply
Yo-i
Why not Systemd? Because with Systemd (as with Wayland) GNU/Linux is drifting farther away from BSD. Maybe for GNU/Linux this might not be that big of a deal, but for the ecosystem of Unix-like OSes as a whole it is a big problem. Gnome+GDM e.g. has systemd dependencies. In order to port it to the BSDs, all these dependencies have to be replaced/removed.
My personal choice (besides OpenBSD, which I don't regard as fully functional for my daily needs) is Artix runit (as I like the simple design of runit - I tried also the OpenRC and the s6 based spin, but I didn't get happy with it). I've been using it for a couple of years now and I can't confirm that it lags behind Arch. Artix is actually a vanilla Arch, except from those packages relevant for replacing systemd by OpenRC, runit or s6.
reply
Why not Systemd? Because with Systemd (as with Wayland) GNU/Linux is drifting farther away from BSD. Maybe for GNU/Linux this might not be that big of a deal, but for the ecosystem of Unix-like OSes as a whole it is a big problem. Gnome+GDM e.g. has systemd dependencies. In order to port it to the BSDs, all these dependencies have to be replaced/removed.
My personal choice (besides OpenBSD, which I don't regard as fully functional for my daily needs) is Artix runit (as I like the simple design of runit - I tried also the OpenRC and the s6 based spin, but I didn't get happy with it). I've been using it for a couple of years now and I can't confirm that it lags behind Arch. Artix is actually a vanilla Arch, except from those packages relevant for replacing systemd by OpenRC, runit or s6.
reply
Sebastian
binary logs is already a very good argument against systemd ... and there a lot of other issues caused by systemd. But since it is as it is, I also switched back to some BSD version some time ago. systemd is pretty annoying to get rid of, when it is part of an installation ... and that is a waste of time. If debian is going to have a script to remove systemd from an installation, it is time to think to switch back to debain. Without a -clean from sytstemd--script, no way to consider debian again, while it is too much workhours to do this by hand until all systemd is removed completly to close all the security issues that come from systemd, besides the nasty binary logs.
reply
binary logs is already a very good argument against systemd ... and there a lot of other issues caused by systemd. But since it is as it is, I also switched back to some BSD version some time ago. systemd is pretty annoying to get rid of, when it is part of an installation ... and that is a waste of time. If debian is going to have a script to remove systemd from an installation, it is time to think to switch back to debain. Without a -clean from sytstemd--script, no way to consider debian again, while it is too much workhours to do this by hand until all systemd is removed completly to close all the security issues that come from systemd, besides the nasty binary logs.
reply
Computer
Plenty of bias, minimizing SIG's, avoiding the issues at hand all the while declaring some responses more legitimate then others? No thank you. FYI the prospect of modularity in the init is to add an abstraction layer so the init can be -plugged in- without code change down stream. That sounds like a serious consideration to make more groups happy. Talking about the end user's responsibility toward the code base and community as a whole seems to neglect the fact the large companies like redhat and canonical developed systemd with large active development communities highly optimized for such projects undertakings. Their focus was on corporate incentives.
reply
Plenty of bias, minimizing SIG's, avoiding the issues at hand all the while declaring some responses more legitimate then others? No thank you. FYI the prospect of modularity in the init is to add an abstraction layer so the init can be -plugged in- without code change down stream. That sounds like a serious consideration to make more groups happy. Talking about the end user's responsibility toward the code base and community as a whole seems to neglect the fact the large companies like redhat and canonical developed systemd with large active development communities highly optimized for such projects undertakings. Their focus was on corporate incentives.
reply
M-ty-s
Well, my reasons to not like systemd is not just philosophycal, but performace problems... Systemd is sometimes very slow because of it's so much bloat, moreover it's a little overcomplicated.
I don't think that Linux kernel is so bloated. Linux kernel is huge, because it was evelolving a lot in the last 10-15 years. It has a wider hardware and feautre support than back in the early 2000's and unlike systemd, the Linux kernel is fast. And remember you always have the opportunity to remove some components from the kernel what you don't need. You can't really do that with systemd.
reply
Well, my reasons to not like systemd is not just philosophycal, but performace problems... Systemd is sometimes very slow because of it's so much bloat, moreover it's a little overcomplicated.
I don't think that Linux kernel is so bloated. Linux kernel is huge, because it was evelolving a lot in the last 10-15 years. It has a wider hardware and feautre support than back in the early 2000's and unlike systemd, the Linux kernel is fast. And remember you always have the opportunity to remove some components from the kernel what you don't need. You can't really do that with systemd.
reply
Mr.
If Debian switches away, that would cause problems with a LOT of their 80K+ distros, I am sure.
If --I-- were them, other than trying as hard as possible to talk to developers about producing daemons for alternative Init systems, they need to do something I haven't seen any other distro do and create a wrapper/-compatability-layer- for Systemd on behalf of whatever init systems they wind-up using. This allows them freedom of choice for init system in case they want more than one and would offer them a competitive edge no one else has yet filled.
reply
If Debian switches away, that would cause problems with a LOT of their 80K+ distros, I am sure.
If --I-- were them, other than trying as hard as possible to talk to developers about producing daemons for alternative Init systems, they need to do something I haven't seen any other distro do and create a wrapper/-compatability-layer- for Systemd on behalf of whatever init systems they wind-up using. This allows them freedom of choice for init system in case they want more than one and would offer them a competitive edge no one else has yet filled.
reply
Rob
You disparage those -protest distros- and question their usefulness at the start but then tell people they are welcome to use them instead of bogging down Debian on the other hand. The overall impression it sends feels like you don't -really- feel like people being free to use non systemd init distros is a viable option at all. For what' s it's worth though, I don't think Debian should wait around until everything runs on ALL inits either before a release. The supporting them but not holding back releases options feels like the best one to me.
reply
You disparage those -protest distros- and question their usefulness at the start but then tell people they are welcome to use them instead of bogging down Debian on the other hand. The overall impression it sends feels like you don't -really- feel like people being free to use non systemd init distros is a viable option at all. For what' s it's worth though, I don't think Debian should wait around until everything runs on ALL inits either before a release. The supporting them but not holding back releases options feels like the best one to me.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
