Systemd 227 Released: "Lots Of New Awesomeness"

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Systemd 227 Released: "Lots Of New Awesomeness"

Lennart Poettering released systemd 227 a few minutes ago with what he describes as "lot's of new awesomeness, and many bugfixes!"..

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Systemd-227-Released

[unixfan2001]

Let the next round of systemd bashing begin! *grabs popcorn

[milkylainen]

Let the next round of systemd bashing begin! *grabs popcorn

The bashing is legit. By definition systemd looks more and more like a viral monoculture.

[Guest]

Let the next round of systemd bashing begin! *grabs popcorn

How dare systemd receive an update; now the version included in my distro is outdated! At least SysV doesn't receive updates anymore, so therefore it's more convenient!

/s, had to find something to complain about

[schmidtbag]

I don't mind updates. What I mind is unnecessary features nobody asked for. An init system should be kept clean and simple. systemd performs fine and is relatively easy to use, but they seriously need to stop adding all this crap. Get rid of everything they deem "awesome" (except journaling) and systemd is a very nice piece of software.

I'm not a fan of canonical by any means, but if there's anything they did right, it was upstart - that was light, simple, fast, and to my knowledge, had good multi-threaded support.

[justmy2cents]

I'm not a fan of canonical by any means, but if there's anything they did right, it was upstart - that was light, simple, fast, and to my knowledge, had good multi-threaded support.

this statement is so bogus i can't even wrap my head around it

- each time boot time was considered systemd won over upstart
- if anything it had really terrible multi-threaded support due to absolute design error in dependencies where there was nothing easier than locking out your services.
- as far as simpler goes, you should specify that as more familiar maybe. writing custom startup scripts is way more complex than writting unit files. not to even mention that you specify variables for service as part of script comment
- and as last, it had more or less same dependencies systemd has by it self making it as heavy as systemd

[FishB8]

An init system should be kept clean and simple. systemd performs fine and is relatively easy to use, but they seriously need to stop adding all this crap.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that systemd is claiming to be an init system. Init is just a sub-set of what it does. Tight integration of system management and services is going to require a monolithic system. You can have a much more loose integration of the init, but there are positive and negative trade-offs for both. The weighting of those trade-offs depends on what your priorities are.

Comparing systemd to a SysV style init is like comparing Linux to Minix. It's hard to compare and argue in favor of one over the other when the overall scope of the overall goals are so vastly different.

History has shown the marco-kernel to be more pragmatic approach than the micro-kernel. I think the macro-userspace management approach, be it systemd or something else. will also win out over the micro-userspace approach.

[erendorn]

I don't mind updates. What I mind is unnecessary features nobody asked for. An init system should be kept clean and simple. systemd performs fine and is relatively easy to use, but they seriously need to stop adding all this crap. Get rid of everything they deem "awesome" (except journaling) and systemd is a very nice piece of software.

I'm not a fan of canonical by any means, but if there's anything they did right, it was upstart - that was light, simple, fast, and to my knowledge, had good multi-threaded support.

Except systemd is a system manager, not an init, so it's not supposed to be kept like an init system.
It's quite expected for systemd to have similar characteristics to the kernel ones (modular but not really, powerfull and efficient but not minimal, and plenty of features that some people find necessary even if you don't).
The main difference is that much fewer people complain about having a kernel.

[yoshi314]

The bashing is legit. By definition systemd looks more and more like a viral monoculture.

yeah, the mission statement of providing a base system steps more and more away from 'init system in the unix way' that people hoped for. at least you can still strip down systemd to just be init system, no problems there.

[schmidtbag]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that systemd is claiming to be an init system. Init is just a sub-set of what it does. Tight integration of system management and services is going to require a monolithic system. You can have a much more loose integration of the init, but there are positive and negative trade-offs for both. The weighting of those trade-offs depends on what your priorities are.

Seeing as linux is about choice, the more monolithic it gets, the less freedom you have.

Comparing systemd to a SysV style init is like comparing Linux to Minix. It's hard to compare and argue in favor of one over the other when the overall scope of the overall goals are so vastly different.

Normally I'd agree but the kicker is systemd is a replacement to SysV, so it kind of has to be compared. But the overall goals are exactly the problem with systemd. It gained popularity because it was very good at what it did - other people may have hated it in the beginning but I thought it was fine. But now they just keep adding stuff to it that really doesn't need to be there. They're not bad features, they're just not necessary. My main concern is too much bloat and increasing the chances of something breaking.