Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 416

The classical UNIX philosophy is one daemon one goal, perfectly implemented, fully secured and full documented. Systemd breaks this view and takes the windows 7 and before concept.

We know that results of this second philosophy: One software that does everything, using a quick and dirty implementation, with an incomplete, and erroneous documentation, and the security is done in a fully procrastination way...
Are you sure that systemd can really escape this second philosophy? In my opinion it can’t. I’m still using the slackware distribution, and I hope they will stay away from systemd.

Your premise about systemd is already wrong from the start, because you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder then that everything else you say is plain wrong.
systemd has nothing to do with Windows 7 and before, it's based on Linux specific kernel features, so you mean Linux takes Windows 7 and before concepts?
systemd opponents love making fools of themselves, it's pathetic really. Don't you know the systemd proponents are mostly proficient people, not stupid enough to believe such nonsense?

Comment Re: Piss off systemd (Score 1) 416

"One big gain is not having to write my own custom init scripts"

Is this really a big problem for people?! I hear this all the time. Init scripts are shell scripts. They're really simple. I can't even conceive of how one could manage to develop a UNIX daemon and not the shell script to manage its execution.

Init shell scripts are not really simple, that's why you don't understand the problem. They require lots of work and maintenance, which was invisible to users, especially in Linux distributions.
The same people that repeat that shell scripts are simple and work perfectly, usually know this, and they know that as soon as distro sysadmins stop maintaining them, the work will be on these users shoulders. So they spread lies, but lies won't make the work. So this was a lost battle from the start.
There's a reason sysadmins were writing their own custom init scripts, and custom scripts means you have to maintain them when the system updates, so you have to register every single one of them and look for regression. This is lots of work.
And no, good daemons need no shell scripts to manage their execution, and it is nonsense to do that. Even sysvinit has a very basic daemon management feature, that nobody used because it was too basic. Shell scripts have none and can't do daemon management properly, efficiently or securely.

Comment Re:Ah, Berlin (Score 1) 416

Text is attractive because it's a least-common-denominator and *universal* format. However inconvenient it may be to parse and organize, you can write a reasonably simple script to do it, and you can pipe it through just about any command to transform or process it in whatever way you want. With text, you never have to worry about a black box of a file, because it's always human-readable, and thus more amenable to hacking.

Which is why lots of good Unix tools have a way to export some meaningful data from binary format to text, tools as different as compression tools, databases, document processors, ...
Even the systemd journal has such a tool.

The downside for log files is that text-based formats are incredibly inefficient as backing stores for any substantial amount of data. And as a configuration format, it's incredibly difficult to write front-end configuration software for scripts, although less so with regular formats like json or xml. Once the configuration is in a script, automated management of that configuration pretty much goes out the window - you're essentially committed to maintaining scripts by hand. This is not a problem for system administrators or advanced users, but horrible for normal users and GUI systems.

There are legitimate points on both sides, and which side you come down on may depend on your primary use case.

I agree with everything except the part where you say it is not a problem for system administrators. It is a huge problem for sysadmins on the contrary, mostly because syadmin time is not infinite. And every single time a sysadmin has to update a system component related to these specialised scripts, he has to get back the knowledge of the script, to be able to migrate it. If you have done sysadmin work, you know that even your own scripts written long ago need you to relearn what you have done to be migrated correctly, so it's even worse when you have to parse others'.
This is the most common problems the old sysadmins have when migrating to systemd actually, all the custom scripts they don't master at all and that take lots of time mastering before they can be adapted.
I had to do that for systemd, for example tackle the apachectl or mysql start scripts, sth which is not fun to do at all.
This is the main problem syaadmins face when migrating, we all fear this, and this is caused by the fact that lots of complexity was actualy hidden in shell scripts, the thing that systemd opponents call "simple".
So to me, systemd opponents are either lazy or very bad sysadmins, or no sysadmin at all, who balk at the difficulty of having to labor in complex shell scripts.
You can see that all the complaints are about people migrating their systems, not people starting from scratch on systemd distros.

And contrary to lots of false beliefs spread, people like me that hate sysvinit and shell scripts since more than a decade are actually the most proficient with them. In work environment, most sysadmins I work with have no clue at even how everything works, especially shell scripts.
I had no problem understanding the shell scripts I talked about above for example. I'm sure systemd proponents are more proficient with shell scripts than the opponents anyway, it's a skill needed to migrate. And 15+ years of not using shell scripts for boot didn't lower my knowledge of them, syadmins use shell scripts for lots of things not related to boot.

Comment Re:Startup management subsystem (Score 1) 416

Proper responsibility? No, you have that wrong. They did everything they had to do.

I strongly disagree. SysVinits "simplicity" was exactly because it left all complexity to others to fix. I won't dwell with PID problems, daemonizations or other classic criticisms of SysVinit, some dating 30 years back, but show one example:

As you know, daemons need special (root) privileges in order to access port-numbers below 1024. This is for security reasons. The backside of this is that the daemon then needs high privileges to run. Enter setuid and similar Posix syscalls; they have basically been demonstrated to be impossible to use in a safe manner, and have provided decades of remote exploits of Linux for the same reason.
Then came Capabilities which meant setuid root programs could be ditched for that, but Capabilites still means the Daemon can freely talk through low port numbers, so spammers have for years exploited this to install spamming smtp servers on exploited hosts or serve malware from port 80.

systemd on the other hand, can give the daemon a low port-number through a socket so that all such low port-number privileges can be completely dropped; even if the daemon is exploited, it can't send spam through a low port number.
Much more secure, and it even makes things much less complicated for the daemon writers.

I can attest to that.
systemd is just a life saver, and I have a recent example of this.
Every year, at summer time, I see loads of attacks on HTTP servers, and often mine are compromised one way or another, and I have to react quickly, and sometimes there is no fix in time. This summer was no exception, with an attack on my drupal web site, which was successful in trying to launch lots of mails from my server, as I had not updated drupal to the latest version.
But now, my HTTP server is protected by systemd via its unit file: it can't tamper with my system or data, everything is protected by systemd, capabilities are very tight, and it couldn't even send the emails as everything failed (but that's more credit to the Web Server that drops privilege). Basically, only legitimate actions work.
So it was much less headaches than with other init systems, and I wasn't in emergency mode this time, I just watched all the attempt ultimately fail, even though the attacker thought they succeeded.
For the security alone, there is just no way a decent sysadmin would stay with shells scripts.

Comment Re:Startup management subsystem (Score 1) 416

From a purely user perspective where
everything is assumed to be working properly (or it is someone else's
problem) then it is great. The same can be said of Microsoft
offerings.

Wrong! You just assumed that Microsoft offerings are assumed to work properly, which is just plain false.
MS offerings need lots of glue from the start to work correctly temporarily.

But if you are coming at it from the sysadmin side then
you might want something that is easier to understand and debug and
fix. The init system has to have a lot of glue because it has to
start up services from a lot of different code bases. There is a lot
in favor of having this glue in a simple language that is easier to
understand and fix. Systemd makes more sense for commodity,
user-oriented devices. It makes very little sense on servers.

Wrong again! I come from mostly a sysadmin side, and systemd crushes shell scripts and sysvinit in every single way.
And this on every workload, from embedded to clusters/HPC going through servers and desktops.
There is just no good thing today on Linux about shell scripts as boot system, and this was true 15+ years ago already.
Systemd is better precisely because sysadmins want sth easier to understand and debug and fix.
I still use shell scripts for booting my Live CD, but very little is done in them, before I switch root FS and launch systemd.
Once systemd is debugged and fix, it's debugged and fixed for every single units you have. While with shell scripts, you know a tuning/debugging nightmare is coming for every single one you add.
Shell scripts are just not reliable at all, few admin even know how to restart a service properly with them, leading to tools like "service" which don't solve every problems like race conditions.

Comment Re:Free speech zone (Score 1) 416

I've already linked to pages explaining these, but you obviously didn't read them.

"Poor understanding of interfaces by the lead developers." - thats a new one - where did you get that from, give us some backup to see what you mean.

This link discusses it

So your backup is sth you wrote. Let me get this straight: you're some kind of genius, everything you say is the truth, right?
You are proven wrong just by Gnome adopting systemd-logind API instead of the ConsoleKit one that everyone involved agree was very bad, and systemd-logind API far better. The most obvious giveaway is that you have nothing to say about this interface and what is bad about it, you just write "it's bad".
You thus have nothing to say and have no case, until you find sth bad about the interface. Same for the other DBUS interfaces.

"Poor understanding of portability by the lead developers." - portable to where? its a linux system.

Exactly lol. Linux only. Not portable. This link goes into more detail.

You don't even understand what portable means, even in the nonsense you've written in your journal.
The portability discussed there is between hardware architecture, and systemd is perfectly portable (at least between x86, x86_64 and ARM, the one I've tested), and it's sth very well understood by systemd developers.
You're talking about compatibility between OS, which is nonsense in this case because the problem here is not that the systemd developers can't handle autotools, it's that systemd uses Linux specific API. These API have to be implemented at the kernel level for the most part, which is sth systemd developers don't want to do, and I can't blame them.

"Scope creep (there is no reason Gnome should depend on systemd)." - thats Gnomes problem, LP issued a library to allow Gnome to avoid using logind but GNOME decided not to use it.

Lennart actively pushed Gnome to use systemd, the forum threads are still available if you want to find them.

Repeating again the same misinformation. Gnome doesn't use systemd, some Gnome component use the systemd-logind API, can't you understand the difference?

only the journal has an element of binary and as a journal, it shits all over syslog/rsyslog with better content.

If the init system dictates what logging system you must use, then that's poor design. Also, corrupt binary logs are harder to read than corrupt text logs.

Fortunately, systemd does'nt dictate what logging system you must use.
And no, corrupt binary logs are not harder to read than corrupt text logs: both are unreadable. Only the non corrupted parts are perfectly readable in both cases.

Comment Re:Systemd, pass II (Score 1) 187

I do observe the controversy around it, and the image of it and its project, painted by its opponents (some of whom have enough creds that it's unlikely that they're talking through their hats), indicates that the claimed issues are likely to be real problems, and this may be a tipping point for Linux adoption and user choice among distributions or OSes.

So you're saying Linux Torvalds has not enough creds so it's likely that he's talking through his hat, and you're making a fallacy by talking about Linux adoption which has nothing to do with this controversy. This controversy makes no sense for most Linux users who don't even understand what "init" is about.

I did my first Linux drivers (a PROM burner and a Selectric-with-selonoids printer) on my personal Altos ACS 68000 running System III, wrote a driver for a block-structured tape drive for AUX - working from my own decompilation of their SCSI disk driver (since the sources weren't available to me initially), ported and augmented a mainframe RAID controller from SvR3 to SvR4, and so on, for nearly three decades, through hacking DeviceTree on my current project. I don't think C has many problems left for me, nor does moving to yet another UNIX environment - especially to one that is still organized in the old, familiar, fashion. B-)

The C standard has moved since these decades, so I wouldn't say sth like that unless I was still heavily programming today.
And having problems with an init which is a very simple OS component, shows that moving to yet another UNIX environment would not be so easy for you.
Besides, Linux is not a Unix environment, it's Unix-like, but Linux is as close to Unix as systemd is close to sysvinit. It's precisely because systemd is made for Linux that it is not natively compatible with other Unix systems like the BSD.

As for trying to learn how systemd works, that's not the proper question. Instead, I ask what is so great about it that I should spend the time to do so, distracting me from my other work, and how doing this would meet my goals (especially the undertand-the-security-issues goal), as compared to moving to a well-supported, time-proven, high-reliability, security-conscious alternative (which is also under a license that is less of a sell to the PHBs when building it into a shippable product.)

You should do your homework in any case, but it doesn't seem like your job makes you involved in sysadmin problems, so it's understandable you clearly don't know what systemd is or does.
Which is a blessing, because that means you didn't modify initscripts which were all working perfectly for you, and so migrating to systemd will be a breeze.
And you will be able to continue not caring about your init.
What is so great about systemd has been explained time and time again, it's a very easy information to find, so people still asking these questions are obvious time wasters, aka trolls.

Unfortunately, I don't get to make that choice myself. It's made by the distribution maintainers. My choice is to accept it, open the can of worms and redo the work of entire teams (and hope their software updates don't break things faster than I fix them), or pick another distribution or OS.

Again, why should I put myself on such a treadmill of unending extra work? If I could trust the maintainers to mostly make the right choices I could go along - with no more than an audit and perhaps an occasional tweak. But if they were making what I consider the right choices, I wouldn't expect to see such a debacle.

Your problem is right there! You know less than the people proficient with this matter, so you trusted them. And yet, now you say you know more than them and don't trust them anymore, even though it's obvious you don't know anything about what you're talking about, still asking where to find information. But no, you decided you are now more proficient than maintainers just because.
It's no wonder what you say don't make sense.

No, it's not. The job of an operating system is to KEEP them from becoming an interlocking mass, while letting them become an interacting system to only the extent appropriate. It isolates them in their own boxes, protects them from each other, and facilitates their access to resources and ONLY their LEGITIMATE interaction wherever appropriate and/or necessary. The job is to Keep It Simple while letting it work.

It's funny, because by your own definition, sysvinit was always a big failure at its task. Which is also the conclusion of everyone I know that actually used it and know how it works. Which is why people want to get rid of it for decades. And Linux was the best environment to do that because it's not Unix. And yet, Solaris did it before.
It's a good thing you came to the same conclusion as other proponents of systemd. Initscripts are nothing more than an interlocking mess of scripts with no knowledge of context or state. sysvinit didn't protect shell scripts from each other, it didn't even protect them from the environment.
systemd is actually doing all that. Actually, your comments about systemd and sysvinit are like you reversed these two words.

Comment Re: Thanks Linus! (Score 1) 187

Unfortunately, for my needs, simplicity and understandability are far more important than a fast boot and feature-rich management of the runtime environment. I need to KNOW that things are being handled properly and securely. That's become far more important since Snowden showed us, not that the spooks were getting into our computers (which we'd already figured was happening), but how DEEPLY and EFFECTIVELY their technology and personnel are able to do so.

So systemd is good news for you, as it removes the frightening security mess that shell initscripts were by configuration files that are not executables.
Trojan could be hidden anywhere with sysvinit, especially with links everywhere, it was just impossible to monitor. Security is one of the reason I stopped using sysvinit more than a decade ago on my servers and desktops.

I need to KNOW that things are being handled properly and securely. That's become far more important since Snowden showed us, not that the spooks were getting into our computers (which we'd already figured was happening), but how DEEPLY and EFFECTIVELY their technology and personnel are able to do so.

It always was important, Snowden just opened more eyes, but lots of people already knew, some still have their eyes closed though.

If the improved functionality is at the cost of burying the configuration and logging in non-human-readable form and entangling diverse processes into an interlocking mass under a complex and ever growing manager, the shark has been jumped.

That was the sysvinit situation, even one of the big problem of initscripts, fortunately systemd corrects this. Now all the truely active configuration is easily readable as is logging, which is readily available, not scattered across 3 or 4 different files.

Though Linux has been becoming (MUCH!) more usable with time, its configuration has been buried progressively more deeply under more and more "convenient and simplifying", but non-transparent, configuration management tools. Systemd is the continuation of the trend. But it is also a quantum leap, rather than another thin slice off the salami. So it has apparently created the "Shelling Point", where a lot of frogs simultaneously figure out that NOW is the time to jump out of the pot.

So that is the nonsense that is going through the head of non-technical people unable to understand technical concepts. It looks like insane thoughts for something like systemd that is actually very simple to explain what it does to non-technical people, but not so simple to code.
You'd better not use buzzword you hear in movies, they don't understand that they're saying nonsense either. For example "non-transparent, configuration management tools", this doesn't make any sense. systemd is not even on the same level as these, it's part of the core of the OS.

It's been a great ride. It had the potential to be even greater. But I think this is where it took the wrong turn and it's time for me to get serious about switching.

There's good reason to switch to NetBSD at work, on the product. (The code supporting the secret sauce is on the user side of the API and is Posix compatible, so it should be no big problem.) Porting my laptop, home servers, and desktops to OpenBSD now looks like it's worth the effort - and less effort than trying to learn, and keep abreast of, the internals of systemd.

systemd detractors don't make any sense : switching to another completely different kernel and OS is somehow easier than learning a new init system commands.
I don't remember people saying such nonsense when Red Hat appeared with chkconfig or service, or when Ubuntu launched Upstart. And I can guarantee it's easier to learn a new init system than switching OS. Also, I don't understand why someone would advertise that he gave up because of his inability to grasp new technology and instead took the harder route because he doesn't understand what he's doing. It seems like sometimes everyone who switches to a BSD feels the need to advertise it.

Call me if somebody comes up with a way to obtain the key benefits of systemd in a simple and transparent manner, rather than creating an opaque mass reminiscent of Tron's Master Control Program. (Unfortunately, the downsides of systemd's approach seem to be built into its fundamental structure, so I don't expect it to evolve into something suitable, even if it's forked.)

Nobody will call you, you made your choice, try to live without being babysitted. Actually, people have obtained the key benefits of systemd for years by just adopting it, giving bug reports and helping improve it. A very simple and transparent manner to do it is to get it on a new and fresh system.
People who have problems with systemd are people that are migrating systems to it, which requires you know your systems well, and how a Linux OS works, from the plumbing and up.

Comment Re:Lennart Poettering is cancer on the face of Lin (Score 1) 347

systemd's position as PID 1 on Linux systems creates an enormous SPOF given the complexity of the code. The only sane position systemd developers can take is "we're not ready, please don't use this even as a test in your released distributions".

So that everyone can see the level of BS of this user : "Linux's position as a kernel on Linux systems creates an enormous SPOF given the complexity of the code. The only sane position Linux developers can take is "we're not ready, please don't use this even as a test in your released distributions".
This is the level of discussion, it's pathetic actually.

For all practical purposes, the rapid and unseemly adoption of systemd means that many enterprises running distributions that now rely upon systemd have to make the decision to not trust their distribution any more if they consider their systems mission critical. This is going to make people move to FreeBSD, Oracle, Windows, non-systemd distributions, microservice/microkernels, etc in rapid fashion. It is going to literally kill Linux for the people who have not yet figured out how to deal with the loss of machines (the majority of the enterprise world). And that may be a good thing, in the sense that Linux has in many ways become indistinguishable and directionless in the sea of operating system options. It tries to be far too many things to far too many people.

The problem for you shills of proprietary OS vendors and appliances, is that Linux actually succeeds in being many things to far too many people (in your eyes).
You'll have to do better than that: while you shills cry here, Linux succeeds, and with systemd, is available in even more products than before.
You know the stupid Cloud rage going on right now, systemd allows Linux systems to be rapidly deployed there.
Yes, you shills have no purpose in this matter actually, you've already lost.

Lennart [...] likes to think he is a genius and we simply don't understand his vision, but for a great many people, his vision is the antithesis of what we like about Linux and Unix. Systemd developers don't understand the arguments of simplicity, composability, and small programs that do one thing well.

I guess the problem is that systemd is heavily dependent on Linux, whose "developers don't understand the arguments of simplicity, composability, and small programs that do one thing well", to quote you. These developers (Linux kernel and systemd) only understand the arguments of programs that just work, are robust, adaptable, coherent, fast and efficient, easy to use, difficult to break, the most secure possible.

The truth is the fault doesn't rely totally upon Lennart and his team: Some of the blame can also be assigned to Linus for poor stewardship, but Linus has a set of complex motives and organizations that influence him. Linus should have killed this stuff much earlier.

I think in a few years, we'll realize what a mistake we made in giving Mr. Poettering any chance of credibility in operating system software development.
I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

So you came to the same conclusion as myself. Except that I think Linux, Lennart and co are far more intelligent than you are, and I just happen to agree with them on technical ground with my knowledge of the field. Even my experience of 15+ years of building special purpose Linux OS from scratch agree with systemd and Linux OS, and even with GNU most of the time, believe it or not.

Comment Re:Systemd detractors are like climate change deni (Score 2, Informative) 347

Actually, it seems quite the opposite. We have the systemd crowd claiming that it's simpler even when there is a whole new level of complexity in systemd they don't even know about (hint, look for the systemd craziness in /lib). Like the climate change deniers, they believe that since they haven't personally seen a problem in their simple and vanilla system that there isn't a problem at all.

There is no "systemd crowd". There are systemd users that find it easier to use than previous solutions which have bugs which won't ever be fixed like Upstart.
systemd is actually far less complex than using Upstart + countless tools and daemons with their configurations scattered all other the place.
I don't see the crazyness you talk about in /lib/systemd or /usr/lib/systemd. I don't use every systemd utilities, but I caved in for a lot of them and threw away xinetd, my custom FS mount scripts, my custom network scripts...
And my simple and vanilla systems, with their LVM on software RAID, FS on SAN and NAS, ... which were a pain to tune so that they bootup correctly every time, were a breeze to migrate to systemd. So yes I don't see a problem with my vanilla systems that even distributions didn't know how to setup 15 years ago, and some still can't today.

Comment Re:Everybody good has moved to the BSDs. (Score 1) 347

The reason that "nobody put up a fight" is because every intelligent Linux user has seen systemd for the disaster that it is, and they've moved to FreeBSD, PC-BSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD or DragonFly BSD months ago. The only Linux users left are the ones who'd be just as happy using Windows, which is pretty much what they get when using a modern GNU/Systemd/Linux distro.

So I'm a unintelligent Linux user that is happoy using Windows to you.
You should revise your hypothesis, as you're plain wrong in my case: I just can't stand using Windows, the latest one I've used is Win7 though, and I can't stand using it as it doesn't work correctly. I can assure you none of the Linux I use/make/administer are like Windows, I actually understand how they work far more than any Windows I ever used, and they don't crash like Windows.

Comment Re:But... (Score 1) 347

because some software expects it and doesn't run without it.
shit software, but software anyways.

that's whats bad about it, really. it's just not a startup replacement but one that aims to turn developers into developing software that can't work without it,, without trouble.

why would startup utility provide user authentication? to conquer everything of course.

You're right of course. Fortunately, the startup utility systemd (PID 1) doesn't provide user authentication, so you and I can sleep well at night while using systemd.
Some people will tell you that PAM is no better, but that's what most distribution use these days. But if you want and are knowledgeable enough, you can make a system without PAM for user authentication too.

Comment Re:But... (Score 1) 347

The better question is why bother supporting two sets of packages and scripts that accomplish precisely the same thing. Pick one and go with it. Given the support for systemd (by people who matter, not trolls), it seems the logical choice.

It's a good thing that they bother if they have the workforce, which they seem to have.
There's no problem with that, gentoo is doing the same thing.
As long as they are also going with systemd so that when the burden of initscripts is unbearable they're not stuck with an even bigger moutain to climb, it will go well. It will still be really painful for initscripts users though.
For now, the chasm isn't so big, it will really be huge when kdbus enters a Linux kernel release, even in experimental.

Comment Re:I like how this got marked troll (Score 0) 347

It's a fact that the fix for corrupt logs, which systemd will often corrupt if you power-cycle your system, is to delete them and throw them away. https://lwn.net/Articles/621453/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/185702.html It's a fact that systemd will only sometimes recover any part of its bullshit binary logs, and only any part after any error. So if journald truncates a file because it shits itself, which it has been known to do, then you lose the whole log.

Your facts are plain lies, any sysadmin can see that. systemd does not corrupt logs when you power-cycle your system either, the fact of power cycling your system is actually what corrupts your file-system, and that's not even always the case.
Stop using "data=writeback" on your ext4 FS, take the performance hit and start using "data=ordered" instead of spreading lies, perhaps your FS will leave you alone then.
Up to this morning, I used the journal to debug an embedded system (raspberry pi) that would not boot, for which I don't have a console nor ssh access. I just shut it down electrically, then get the SD card, then read the journal file from another system. Guess what: the entire file is readable every single time (I've done it a lot to debug boot problems) with journalctl, with even the kernel boot messages as thanks to systemd, I get really everything in the log.

"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...