Posted by samzenpus Опубликовано samzenpus on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @03:10PM в среду 25 ноября 2015 @ 03: 10PM from the let-the-flamewar-begin dept. от выпускаемого-The-flamewar-начинают отдела.
Comments:
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: по phantomfive (622387) пишет: I don't do much init-fiddling although I do like the text based init/runlevel thing, Я не делаю много-Init пустячный, хотя я, как текст, основанный / инициализации на уровне выполнения вещь, It's pretty clear that if KDE depends on one particular init system, that systemd is no longer just an init system. Это довольно ясно, что если KDE зависит от одной конкретной системы инициализации, что Systemd уже не просто система инициализации. ..
by Erik Hensema ( 12898 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @04:34PM ( по Эрик Hensema (12898) пишет: в среду 25 ноября 2015 @ 04: 34PM ( #51004209 ) Homepage # +51004209 ) Домашняя страница Systemd never was, and never will be, just an init system. Systemd никогда не было, и никогда не будет, просто система инициализации. The init system is just a small part of systemd. Система инициализации лишь малая часть Systemd. The init system isn't the part the desktops are depending on. Система инициализации не является частью настольные компьютеры зависят от. It's the interfaces to other subsystems the desktops are depending on, such as the power management interface and the hotplug interface. Это интерфейсы других подсистем рабочие столы в зависимости от, например, интерфейс управления питанием и интерфейсом автоопределения. ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: по phantomfive (622387) пишет: Die Systemd! Die Systemd! I prefer my log files in text format. Я предпочитаю, чтобы мои файлы журнала в текстовом формате. The problem isn't binary logging. Проблема заключается не в бинарное протоколирование. Some people prefer that, it's ok, they should be able to have binary logs on their system. Некоторые люди предпочитают, что это нормально, они должны быть в состоянии иметь бинарные журналы в их системе. The problem is we already have a system for that.....syslogd. Проблема заключается в том у нас уже есть система для этого ..... Syslogd. Instead of completely redoing the way logging works, if they wanted binary logging, then they could make small modifications to syslogd, and then everyone is happy. Вместо того, чтобы полностью переделать способ ведения журнала работы, если они хотят двоичную регистрацию, то они могли бы внести небольшие изменения в Syslogd, а затем все довольны. Switching between binary logs and text logs would be simple. Переключение между бинарными журналов и текстовых журналов было бы просто. Instead, they made a completely new haphazard interface, trying obsolete the system that was alre Вместо этого они сделали совершенно новый интерфейс бессистемный, пытаясь устаревшей системы, которая была ALRE ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: The systemd team didn't create those dependencies, the DE maintainers did. All of these DEs ran just fine without systemd and they still could if someone was interested in doing so. The systemd developers have been active in the DE mailing lists, encouraging them to make systemd a dependency. See here for an example [gnome.org] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00427.html ..
by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) writes: Better explanation: sysvinit is widely considered awful by most distro maintainers. How do we know this? Well, because distro maintainers have been trying to get away from it for years. Even when everything was run from 'init' there have been multiple refactorings of /etc/*.d to try to produce a better start up environment. At some point, some distributions, notably Ubuntu, switched to an initd replacement called Upstart. Because they were desperate to get away from sysvinit. ChromeOS, possibly the most
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: I investigated in detail why Debian adopted systemd, and wrote about it here [slashdot.org]. It largely agrees with your post, that people mostly want to get away from sysv init, and of course sysv init has been controversial since it was created, which is why BSD never used it. The problem with systemd isn't the features it tries to provide, the features are good. The problem is the architecture of the software is really bad. There is absolutely no reason KDE should depend on a particular init system. ..
.. by Peter HS ( 38077 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @08:08PM ( #51005555 ) Homepage The problem the non-systemd distros are facing with running a modern desktop are entirely their own fault. Gnome and KDE developers pleaded for years that non-systemd distros or anybody else should start to maintain ConsoleKit which now have been abandonware for almost 4 years. The non-systemd distros ought to realize that it is entirely up to them to maintain their own alternative software stack, and even help out upstreams projects like KDE to support them. At the moment only a single guy is maintaining CK2 and sending patches to KDE so KDE will work with CK2. People whine about "Linux is all about choice", but when it comes to maintain those choices they all shy away with a "I am not a programmer", "No time", "No money" etc. So if you want to run a modern desktop in 2016 on a non-systemd distro, you better start contributing towards it. The same thing goes for OS containers, the new cgroups API and what not. If you want that stuff, don't expect it to magically being made by benevolent pixies nor developers from systemd-distros. ..
.. by steveha ( 103154 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @04:29PM ( #51004177 ) Homepage All of your questions are easily answered by reading the link provided at the top of the article: http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma [davidedmundson.co.uk] Why does the desktop care who's booted it up? The Init System "We don't care. It doesn't affect us." logind Allows KDE to provide user-switching features. Device Management Allows KDE to have access to your mouse and keyboard without root access and without random applications being able to sniff your keystrokes. Inhibitor Locks Allows KDE to react to notifications like "the system is about to go down" and delay until a condition is met (example: delay a suspend until the lock screen is displayed and all your desktop windows are hidden behind the lock screen). timedated and Friends Allows KDE to set time and date without root; allows KDE apps to be notified if time and date gets changed. (KDE currently runs a daemon just to watch for time and date changes, and they would like to get rid of this daemon and simplify their code.) User Units If KDE takes advantage of the "units" in systemd, then when any part of KDE crashes or hangs, systemd will restart the misbehaving part. that implies they won't work on *BSD at all. Right? Правильно? "Projects like [SystemBSD] bring the interfaces we need to BSD and as it gets more stable we should be able to start distributing features." So really, choice is being taken away clear across the board. Either that or I'm missing something really big which implies systemd is not a strict dependency. I encourage you to read the whole article and see what big things you are missing. I don't know about you, but when I read that article I didn't think "Man those KDE guys are idiots, why would they want any of that." It all makes sense to me. It's easier for me to believe that SystemD has some merit than to believe that all the Debian core developers are idiots, plus all the Ubuntu developers, and now all the KDE developers and for that matter the Gnome developers. My biggest concerns with systemd are the monoculture of it all, so projects like UselessD and SystemBSD sound great to me. Force the SystemD guys to document and justify everything, and provide alternatives...
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @03:36PM ( #51003711 ) Journal If you're allergic to trimming your neckbeard and running a modern init, There's no reason a Window Manager should depend on a particular init system. Doing so is a clear sign of bad software architecture. ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: Again, the point under discussion is neither KDE nor Gnome should depend on a particular init system. ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: If any other init system + provided the features necessary for the modern desktop environments, then I'm sure they would not hesitate to support it The init system should not be providing those features. That is entirely the problem. and no one other then systemd has bothered to create a viable solution to the destkop environments problems. What was wrong with Powerdevil and pm-utils? ..
Journal by phantomfive Журнал по phantomfive on Thursday February 12, 2015 @03:29AM в четверг 12 февраля 2015 @ 03: 29AM
There's a Debian debate page , but it's disappointing and everything systemd does is listed with equal value. Там есть страница дебаты Debian , но это разочарование , и все , что делает Systemd перечислен с равным значением. Thanks to Russ Albery for making a much more balanced assessment, explaining what he likes. The short answer to the question is: SystemD makes things much easier for people writing init scripts. Благодаря Russ Олбери для создания гораздо более сбалансированной оценки, объясняя , что он любит. Короткий ответ на этот вопрос: Systemd делает вещи намного проще для людей , пишущих сценарии инициализации. It wasn't about cgroups, or speed, or login managers, it was about writing easy init scripts. Речь шла не о контрольных групп, или скорость, или менеджеров входа в систему, это было о написании простых сценариев инициализации. Here are the major complaints he has with the traditional startup system: Вот основные жалобы у него есть с традиционной системой запуска: * Lack of integration with kernel-level events to properly order startup. * Отсутствие интеграции с событиями на уровне ядра, чтобы должным образом порядок запуска.
* No mechanism for process monitoring and restarting beyond inittab. * Нет механизма для мониторинга процесса и перезапуск за inittab. * Heavy reliance on shell scripting rather than declarative syntax. * Сильная зависимость от сценариев командной оболочки, а не декларативного синтаксиса. * A fork and exit with PID file model for daemon startup. * Вилка и выход ПИД-модели файла для запуска демона.
He furthermore points out these problems with startup scripts: Кроме того, он указывает на то, эти проблемы с помощью сценариев запуска: The model of fork and exit without clear synchronization points is inherently racy, the boot model encoded into sysvinit doesn't reflect a modern system boot, and maintaining large and complex init scripts as conffiles has been painful for years. Модель вилки и выхода без четких точек синхронизации по своей сути колоритный, модель загрузки закодированы в Sysvinit не отражает современную загрузку системы, а также поддержание больших и сложных сценариев инициализации, как конфигурационными файлами был болезненным в течение многих лет. Nearly every init script, including the ones in my own packages, have various edge-case bugs or problems because it's very hard to write robust service startup in shell, even with the excellent helper programs and shell libraries that Debian has available. Почти каждый скрипт инициализации, в том числе и в моих собственных пакетов, имеют различные ошибки края дела или проблемы, потому что это очень трудно писать надежный запуск службы в оболочке, даже с отличным вспомогательных программ и библиотек оболочки, которые Debian имеет в своем распоряжении. .. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=auto&tl=ru&u=http://slashdot.org/journal/2152187/systemd---why-did-debian-adopt-it
no subject
Submission: Will you be able to run a modern desktop environment in 2016 without systemd? Подача конкурсных предложений: Будете ли вы быть в состоянии запустить современную среду рабочего стола в 2016 году без Systemd?
Posted by samzenpus Опубликовано samzenpus on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @03:10PM в среду 25 ноября 2015 @ 03: 10PM from the let-the-flamewar-begin dept. от выпускаемого-The-flamewar-начинают отдела.
Comments:
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: по phantomfive (622387) пишет: I don't do much init-fiddling although I do like the text based init/runlevel thing, Я не делаю много-Init пустячный, хотя я, как текст, основанный / инициализации на уровне выполнения вещь, It's pretty clear that if KDE depends on one particular init system, that systemd is no longer just an init system. Это довольно ясно, что если KDE зависит от одной конкретной системы инициализации, что Systemd уже не просто система инициализации. ..
by Erik Hensema ( 12898 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @04:34PM ( по Эрик Hensema (12898) пишет: в среду 25 ноября 2015 @ 04: 34PM ( #51004209 ) Homepage # +51004209 ) Домашняя страница Systemd never was, and never will be, just an init system. Systemd никогда не было, и никогда не будет, просто система инициализации. The init system is just a small part of systemd. Система инициализации лишь малая часть Systemd. The init system isn't the part the desktops are depending on. Система инициализации не является частью настольные компьютеры зависят от. It's the interfaces to other subsystems the desktops are depending on, such as the power management interface and the hotplug interface. Это интерфейсы других подсистем рабочие столы в зависимости от, например, интерфейс управления питанием и интерфейсом автоопределения. ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: по phantomfive (622387) пишет: Die Systemd! Die Systemd! I prefer my log files in text format. Я предпочитаю, чтобы мои файлы журнала в текстовом формате. The problem isn't binary logging. Проблема заключается не в бинарное протоколирование. Some people prefer that, it's ok, they should be able to have binary logs on their system. Некоторые люди предпочитают, что это нормально, они должны быть в состоянии иметь бинарные журналы в их системе. The problem is we already have a system for that.....syslogd. Проблема заключается в том у нас уже есть система для этого ..... Syslogd. Instead of completely redoing the way logging works, if they wanted binary logging, then they could make small modifications to syslogd, and then everyone is happy. Вместо того, чтобы полностью переделать способ ведения журнала работы, если они хотят двоичную регистрацию, то они могли бы внести небольшие изменения в Syslogd, а затем все довольны. Switching between binary logs and text logs would be simple. Переключение между бинарными журналов и текстовых журналов было бы просто. Instead, they made a completely new haphazard interface, trying obsolete the system that was alre Вместо этого они сделали совершенно новый интерфейс бессистемный, пытаясь устаревшей системы, которая была ALRE ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: The systemd team didn't create those dependencies, the DE maintainers did. All of these DEs ran just fine without systemd and they still could if someone was interested in doing so. The systemd developers have been active in the DE mailing lists, encouraging them to make systemd a dependency. See here for an example [gnome.org]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00427.html ..
by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) writes: Better explanation: sysvinit is widely considered awful by most distro maintainers. How do we know this? Well, because distro maintainers have been trying to get away from it for years. Even when everything was run from 'init' there have been multiple refactorings of /etc/*.d to try to produce a better start up environment. At some point, some distributions, notably Ubuntu, switched to an initd replacement called Upstart. Because they were desperate to get away from sysvinit. ChromeOS, possibly the most
by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: I investigated in detail why Debian adopted systemd, and wrote about it here [slashdot.org]. It largely agrees with your post, that people mostly want to get away from sysv init, and of course sysv init has been controversial since it was created, which is why BSD never used it. The problem with systemd isn't the features it tries to provide, the features are good. The problem is the architecture of the software is really bad. There is absolutely no reason KDE should depend on a particular init system. ..
.. by Peter HS ( 38077 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @08:08PM ( #51005555 ) Homepage The problem the non-systemd distros are facing with running a modern desktop are entirely their own fault. Gnome and KDE developers pleaded for years that non-systemd distros or anybody else should start to maintain ConsoleKit which now have been abandonware for almost 4 years. The non-systemd distros ought to realize that it is entirely up to them to maintain their own alternative software stack, and even help out upstreams projects like KDE to support them. At the moment only a single guy is maintaining CK2 and sending patches to KDE so KDE will work with CK2. People whine about "Linux is all about choice", but when it comes to maintain those choices they all shy away with a "I am not a programmer", "No time", "No money" etc. So if you want to run a modern desktop in 2016 on a non-systemd distro, you better start contributing towards it. The same thing goes for OS containers, the new cgroups API and what not. If you want that stuff, don't expect it to magically being made by benevolent pixies nor developers from systemd-distros. ..
.. by steveha ( 103154 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @04:29PM ( #51004177 ) Homepage All of your questions are easily answered by reading the link provided at the top of the article: http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma [davidedmundson.co.uk] Why does the desktop care who's booted it up? The Init System "We don't care. It doesn't affect us." logind Allows KDE to provide user-switching features. Device Management Allows KDE to have access to your mouse and keyboard without root access and without random applications being able to sniff your keystrokes. Inhibitor Locks Allows KDE to react to notifications like "the system is about to go down" and delay until a condition is met (example: delay a suspend until the lock screen is displayed and all your desktop windows are hidden behind the lock screen). timedated and Friends Allows KDE to set time and date without root; allows KDE apps to be notified if time and date gets changed. (KDE currently runs a daemon just to watch for time and date changes, and they would like to get rid of this daemon and simplify their code.) User Units If KDE takes advantage of the "units" in systemd, then when any part of KDE crashes or hangs, systemd will restart the misbehaving part. that implies they won't work on *BSD at all. Right? Правильно? "Projects like [SystemBSD] bring the interfaces we need to BSD and as it gets more stable we should be able to start distributing features." So really, choice is being taken away clear across the board. Either that or I'm missing something really big which implies systemd is not a strict dependency. I encourage you to read the whole article and see what big things you are missing. I don't know about you, but when I read that article I didn't think "Man those KDE guys are idiots, why would they want any of that." It all makes sense to me. It's easier for me to believe that SystemD has some merit than to believe that all the Debian core developers are idiots, plus all the Ubuntu developers, and now all the KDE developers and for that matter the Gnome developers. My biggest concerns with systemd are the monoculture of it all, so projects like UselessD and SystemBSD sound great to me. Force the SystemD guys to document and justify everything, and provide alternatives...
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @03:36PM ( #51003711 ) Journal If you're allergic to trimming your neckbeard and running a modern init, There's no reason a Window Manager should depend on a particular init system. Doing so is a clear sign of bad software architecture. ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: Again, the point under discussion is neither KDE nor Gnome should depend on a particular init system. ..
.. by phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: If any other init system + provided the features necessary for the modern desktop environments, then I'm sure they would not hesitate to support it The init system should not be providing those features. That is entirely the problem. and no one other then systemd has bothered to create a viable solution to the destkop environments problems. What was wrong with Powerdevil and pm-utils? ..
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=auto&tl=ru&u=http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/11/25/1728238/will-you-be-able-to-run-a-modern-desktop-environment-in-2016-without-systemd
http://slashdot.org/journal/2152187/systemd---why-did-debian-adopt-it
Journal phantomfive's Journal: systemd - Why did Debian Adopt it? Journal Журнал phantomfive в: Systemd - Почему Debian принять его?
Journal by phantomfive Журнал по phantomfive on Thursday February 12, 2015 @03:29AM в четверг 12 февраля 2015 @ 03: 29AM
There's a Debian debate page , but it's disappointing and everything systemd does is listed with equal value. Там есть страница дебаты Debian , но это разочарование , и все , что делает Systemd перечислен с равным значением. Thanks to Russ Albery for making a much more balanced assessment, explaining what he likes. The short answer to the question is: SystemD makes things much easier for people writing init scripts. Благодаря Russ Олбери для создания гораздо более сбалансированной оценки, объясняя , что он любит. Короткий ответ на этот вопрос: Systemd делает вещи намного проще для людей , пишущих сценарии инициализации. It wasn't about cgroups, or speed, or login managers, it was about writing easy init scripts. Речь шла не о контрольных групп, или скорость, или менеджеров входа в систему, это было о написании простых сценариев инициализации. Here are the major complaints he has with the traditional startup system: Вот основные жалобы у него есть с традиционной системой запуска: * Lack of integration with kernel-level events to properly order startup. * Отсутствие интеграции с событиями на уровне ядра, чтобы должным образом порядок запуска.
* No mechanism for process monitoring and restarting beyond inittab. * Нет механизма для мониторинга процесса и перезапуск за inittab. * Heavy reliance on shell scripting rather than declarative syntax. * Сильная зависимость от сценариев командной оболочки, а не декларативного синтаксиса. * A fork and exit with PID file model for daemon startup. * Вилка и выход ПИД-модели файла для запуска демона.
He furthermore points out these problems with startup scripts: Кроме того, он указывает на то, эти проблемы с помощью сценариев запуска: The model of fork and exit without clear synchronization points is inherently racy, the boot model encoded into sysvinit doesn't reflect a modern system boot, and maintaining large and complex init scripts as conffiles has been painful for years. Модель вилки и выхода без четких точек синхронизации по своей сути колоритный, модель загрузки закодированы в Sysvinit не отражает современную загрузку системы, а также поддержание больших и сложных сценариев инициализации, как конфигурационными файлами был болезненным в течение многих лет. Nearly every init script, including the ones in my own packages, have various edge-case bugs or problems because it's very hard to write robust service startup in shell, even with the excellent helper programs and shell libraries that Debian has available. Почти каждый скрипт инициализации, в том числе и в моих собственных пакетов, имеют различные ошибки края дела или проблемы, потому что это очень трудно писать надежный запуск службы в оболочке, даже с отличным вспомогательных программ и библиотек оболочки, которые Debian имеет в своем распоряжении. ..
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=auto&tl=ru&u=http://slashdot.org/journal/2152187/systemd---why-did-debian-adopt-it