# Ubuntu follows Debian to Systemd



## sulman (Feb 14, 2014)

For those of use with a a foot in both Linux and FreeBSD waters, this is significant news. 

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 

I think that's game over for the Linux init system wars. I wonder if Ubuntu are going to persist with Mir, too.


----------



## sossego (Feb 15, 2014)

Business as usual.


----------



## hitest (Feb 15, 2014)

The only Linux I use is Slackware.  I think Patrick will only implement systemd if he is forced to do that.


----------



## dpejesh (Feb 15, 2014)

hitest said:
			
		

> The only Linux I use is Slackware.  I think Patrick will only implement systemd if he is forced to do that.



Don't worry, after systemd assimilates more and more of the core Linux utilities and makes it impossible to use them outside of itself, then he'll have to cave too.  It's a shitty thing they're doing, but Linux can't get much bigger so why not start to force every other distribution into being nothing more than a bastardized spin of RHEL.  I've been watching this unfold for the last couple of years and it's been disgusting to witness all the arrogance, childish antics, deceit, fud, and lies spread by the systemd developers.  Hopefully at the end of the day people will realize that it's an EEE strategy to gain market share and they'll start to look more at the BSD's to get away from it, but that'll be tough too if they get their way.  I can go on and on about this but I've digressed enough.  The pre-systemd Debian will be missed.


----------



## CurlyTheStooge (Feb 15, 2014)

Another Slackware only user here. Of course we trust Pat with whatever he'll decide, but it's going to be a tough road ahead IMO.
The only comfort as of now is, the Linux kernel remains and should remain untouched by the hard dependencies for Systemd as Linus won't allow any such crap in the kernel itself.

Regards.


----------



## neel (Feb 15, 2014)

Linux is committing suicide with systemd. We might very well call it suicided (pron. suicide dee). It's just going to make Linux lose market share like the GPL did circa GPLv3.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 15, 2014)

I've noticed a big increase in activity on these boards lately, especially from Linux people trying out FreeBSD. I wonder if it's due to all this stuff going on over there.


----------



## hitest (Feb 15, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> I've noticed a big increase in activity on these boards lately, especially from Linux people trying out FreeBSD. I wonder if it's due to all this stuff going on over there.



I've used FreeBSD since 5.x; I also like Slackware a lot.  You make a good point, some of us may make the move to alternate operating systems if Linux goes awry.


----------



## pkubaj (Feb 15, 2014)

neel said:
			
		

> Linux is committing suicide with systemd. We might very well call it suicided (pron. suicide dee). It's just going to make Linux lose market share like the GPL did circa GPLv3.


I've noticed that too, however, I thought it was due to the publicity FreeBSD made during 10.0-RELEASE release process.


----------



## hitest (Feb 16, 2014)

neel said:
			
		

> *Linux is committing suicide with systemd.* We might very well call it suicided (pron. suicide dee). It's just going to make Linux lose market share like the GPL did circa GPLv3.



Systemd is certainly not helping Linux in my opinion.  But it may force the distros to unify under a common, albeit crappy, banner.  However, I doubt that systemd will destroy Linux.  Interesting times ahead for Linux and the BSDs.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Feb 16, 2014)

dpejesh said:
			
		

> I've been watching this unfold for the last couple of years and it's been disgusting to witness all the arrogance, childish antics, deceit, fud, and lies spread by the systemd developers.


That rivals childhood Facebook indiscretions as something one wouldn't want a potential employer to see. Frankly, I'm shocked. It is not how I had envisioned developers to present themselves.


----------



## sulman (Feb 16, 2014)

The problem is, it's rather good. 

If you disregard the politics, the pugilism of the developers, and the disregard of POSIX, it's actually a very good user experience.

Linux gets rightly criticised for fragmentation and messy practice, but this _is_ an answer. It's just not an answer everyone likes. That may say more about Linux than the people that contribute to it.


----------



## beatgammit (Feb 16, 2014)

I don't see what all the hate over systemd is about. I've had more pain with Upstart on Ubuntu than systemd on Debian.

I _am_ a little sad that Debian didn't pick OpenRC instead, but I'd mostly want it in order to keep projects like GNOME honest (and make it easier to port software to FreeBSD =D). It didn't get any support though, and since I really don't like Upstart, I'm pretty happy with the decision.


----------



## sulman (Feb 16, 2014)

beatgammit said:
			
		

> I _am_ a little sad that Debian didn't pick OpenRC instead, but I'd mostly want it in order to keep projects like GNOME honest (and make it easier to port software to FreeBSD =D).



I was very upset about Gnome 3. I still am.


----------



## kpa (Feb 16, 2014)

beatgammit said:
			
		

> I don't see what all the hate over systemd is about. I've had more pain with Upstart on Ubuntu than systemd on Debian.



It is the usual change resistance. The false application of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mantra that gets repeated often when people get fearful over any kind progress that seemingly threatens their jobs/positions and the comfortable world they have built around them. It applies to computers too because most people can not distance themselves from the technology enough to have a non-emotional and fact-based outlook on the subject.


----------



## CurlyTheStooge (Feb 16, 2014)

beatgammit said:
			
		

> I don't see what all the hate over systemd is about.



This post from a fellow Slackware user at my favorite Linux forum perfectly sums it up why there's this resistance :-



> Let me summarise. systemd is exactly the sort of thing a one-club golfer would come up with if he had extraordinarily deep C skills, no systems administration experience, no historical perspective, and didn't consult anyone who might spoil the illusion.
> 
> What is needed out there is something that is
> 
> ...



Complete link is here :- http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware-and-systemd-885228/#post4380082

Regards.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 16, 2014)

dpejesh said:
			
		

> Don't worry, after systemd assimilates more and more of the core Linux utilities and makes it impossible to use them outside of itself, then he'll have to cave too.  It's a shitty thing they're doing, but Linux can't get much bigger so why not start to force every other distribution into being nothing more than a bastardized spin of RHEL.  I've been watching this unfold for the last couple of years and it's been disgusting to witness all the arrogance, childish antics, deceit, fud, and lies spread by the systemd developers.  Hopefully at the end of the day people will realize that it's an EEE strategy to gain market share and they'll start to look more at the BSD's to get away from it, but that'll be tough too if they get their way.  I can go on and on about this but I've digressed enough.  The pre-systemd Debian will be missed.



Well, the problem is that they not only push systemd down the throat of the distros, but also into all applications which come close. What would you bet that we can still have some KDE or other "linux" software without this virus? Yes, I think the term is appropriate. These days, many do not even see differences between Linux and Unix, other than Unix is this old thing whereas Linux is that new and cool stuff, right? We see this with KMS, which I still do not think is such a great idea, and now it will continue with this.

And discussing this with the advocates usually reminds me how it is to play chess with a pigeon. It knocks over all pices, craps on the board, and flies back to it's flock - loudly claiming victory. We will see more and more software being tied in, not following POSIX or being lazy in the portability department.

Interesting times, indeed, for all of us.


----------



## trh411 (Feb 16, 2014)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Well, the problem is that they not only push systemd down the throat of the distros, but also into all applications which come close.


Well, some applications have at least tried to push back. IIRC, and this goes back a couple of years now, the systemd author(s) approached the GNOME project to propose enhanced integration between systemd and GNOME, whereby GNOME would rely on systemd as a dependency. The GNOME Project ultimately decided that relying on systemd was not in their best interests. I am not aware the the GNOME project has reconsidered their rejection of systemd. Does anybody know for sure? Is the GNOME project still under pressure to "comply" either directly from the systemd author(s) or from the Linux distributions that have adopted systemd?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 16, 2014)

sulman said:
			
		

> If you disregard the politics, the pugilism of the developers, and the disregard of POSIX, it's actually a very good user experience.
> 
> ... rightly criticised for fragmentation and messy practice,
> ... this _is_ an answer. It's just not an answer everyone likes.


Your post reminds me of a TV commercial for a car where a guy says, "I've owned five of these cars over the last 10 years.  If it wasn't such a great car, why would I buy so many of them?"


----------



## sulman (Feb 16, 2014)

Hah, well, that implies the product isn't very good. I didn't say that.


----------



## NewGuy (Feb 16, 2014)

I don't particularly like systemd (using it, its style or its attchment to binary log files), I think it is a solution looking for a problem. Not a very good solution either. That being said, very few people will ever notice/care. I've used half a dozen Linux distributions that were running systemd and I didn't notice because I wasn't doing any low-level init work. The vast majority of users will never know if they are using Upstart, systemd or something else. Administrators will generally know, but they make up a small portion of the population and rarely need to mess with init directly anyway. It is not going to make that much of a difference to most admins when they need to type "systemctl restart apache" instead of "service apache restart".

So, yeah, systemd sucks as an init solution, but most people (admins included) will never notice the difference.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 16, 2014)

Lets see what Volde... *ehm* The One Who Is Not To Be Named has to say to all this.

Head, meet desk...

Oh, just found this in the comments section there. Thumbs up for Patrik!


----------



## sossego (Feb 16, 2014)

> And why on earth does every daemon now need to be patched? They worked well for the last few decades without such specific hackery.


 Patrick Volkerding


----------



## zspider (Feb 17, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> I've noticed a big increase in activity on these boards lately, especially from Linux people trying out FreeBSD. I wonder if it's due to all this stuff going on over there.



It's the shape of things to come.


----------



## dpejesh (Feb 17, 2014)

kpa said:
			
		

> It is the usual change resistance. The false application of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mantra that gets repeated often when people get fearful over any kind progress that seemingly threatens their jobs/positions and the comfortable world they have built around them. It applies to computers too because most people can not distance themselves from the technology enough to have a non-emotional and fact-based outlook on the subject.



For some people that is true, but also a very naive stance.  You're looking at it from a 10,000 foot view with the now empty cup of kool-aid they gave you still in your hand.  There's many layers under that which is where the real problem lies with systemd.  All you need to do is look at what happened with udev, logind, and now dbus to get an understanding of what their motives are.  It's far more reaching than 'change resistance' as you simply put it, or as they'd like you to believe.  It's about dirty tactics to eliminate competition all while touting a horn of bullshit and lies.  It's about hardwiring core components into systemd to enforce control over the Linux ecosystem while at the same time disregarding every other form of unix.  Everything they've touched has been riddled with false claims of extensiblity and compatibility while being extended in non-portable ways and locked into systemd without ever fulfilling any of the empty promises.  It's a systemic disease.   It's textbook Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.

Since they've pretty much accomplished their goals of forcing systemd into most every major distribution, they're moving their focus to dbus now which affects basically anything with a desktop, regardless of operating system.  If they get their way and can force everything that uses dbus to now go through kdbus/systemd then that will effectively lock out a large number of pieces of software from running on anything non-systemd.  The best part about their dbus work is they didn't even bother to consult with the dbus developers on it.  They decided to make their own incompatible implementation, drop it into systemd, force it on everybody, then leave a note for the dbus guys telling them what they did.  None of these things ever needed to be put into systemd to begin with which is the real kicker.  They could have, and in some cases have been, happily living along side it.  It's not about innovation either, systemd hasn't done anything that hasn't already been implemented before.  The only thing they're doing different is creating hard interlocking hacks with an agenda which they try to mask with many of the same things you just said.  When anybody tries to bring up valid concerns on the subject its inevitable to see this same nonsense used in its defense to avoid addressing the real problems that are raised.  It won't end there either, I'm sure Wayland will be next if they haven't hijacked it already, and after Debian switches over, don't be surprised to see some ridiculous changes like hard-wiring rpm/yum into it or any other number of unscrupulous moves to hinder them.  Debian choosing systemd will be far more detrimental for them in the long run if they end up being manipulated in ways that they've now exposed themselves to.

Metaphorically speaking, with Debian now jacked up and off its foundation and placed onto Red Hat's flat bed truck it will be interesting to watch where they drive it.  Especially after you've read enough of Poettering's fanatical pouttering's of Canonical.  I can only hope he's riding the hood like a bucking bronco when it slams into a wall so his inflated head explodes while acting as an airbag for all the projects and people he's drug along on his joy ride.


----------



## CurlyTheStooge (Feb 17, 2014)

sossego said:
			
		

> > And why on earth does every daemon now need to be patched? They worked well for the last few decades without such specific hackery.
> 
> 
> Patrick Volkerding



That's not Patrick Volkerding, the BDFL of Slackware Linux. That's Patrick Lauer from Gentoo.

Regards.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Feb 17, 2014)

So FreeBSD may someday be obligated-not-by-choice to migrate to systemd?  Or maybe there is a workaround to be coded?


----------



## kpa (Feb 17, 2014)

jb_fvwm2 said:
			
		

> So FreeBSD may someday be obligated-not-by-choice to migrate to systemd?  Or maybe there is a workaround to be coded?



Absolutely not because of wrong license (GPL). Apple's launchd is more likely candidate:

Thread 43899


----------



## throAU (Feb 17, 2014)

2c.  The "other" Unix platforms should just not do what Linux does, and either do their own thing, or attempt to be more compatible with OS X.

Love or hate apple, much of what they have done with OS X has been "the right way" (IMHO), and I suspect that if OS X wins the Unix desktop war (and at this point, it looks pretty clear), working similarly on the back end (or even as a complementary / competitor desktop) will be a lot more attractive than the basket-case that is the Linux environment.

Just because Linux is doing something is irrelevant, really.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 17, 2014)

throAU said:
			
		

> Love or hate apple, much of what they have done with OS X has been "the right way" (IMHO), and I suspect that if OS X wins the Unix desktop war (and at this point, it looks pretty clear), working similarly on the back end (or even as a complementary / competitor desktop) will be a lot more attractive than the basket-case that is the Linux environment.


Given that iOS is also OS-X with some other eye-candy, it would be pretty save to say that they already won the Unix Desktop war. And I agree with you here that they did the right things. I have not really used it (last MacOS I 'used' was 9.x, IIRC), but from what I read and hear it is going in the right direction. Now, if they would also catch up in the FS department, it would be even better. Shame the ZFS did not work out for them 


> Just because Linux is doing something is irrelevant, really.


Not quite - you may find that, if something is done in Linux, it is worth checking it even harder before use than other solutions. I would not include the kernel here at this moment - but wait. Did they not put DBUS into kernel space now? Does this sound like a good idea to anyone here?


----------



## shevegen (Sep 19, 2015)

> *Not quite - you may find that, if something is done in Linux, it is worth checking it even harder before use than other solutions. I would not include the kernel here at this moment - but wait. Did they not put DBUS into kernel space now? Does this sound like a good idea to anyone here?*



Red Hat simply became too dominating. It's not just systemd, they also got their drones in KDE. (Gnome anyway, but we have known that since years that Red Hat controls Gnome; see the many complaints about Gnome 3, see how the real spirit of Gnome 2 became mate)

I remember a hilarious conversation from #kde how someone praised systemd when a few people wrote that they disliked it. I then realized that the guy who did so was from Red Hat. I pointed out the conflict of interest he has as Red Hat employee - he thought that no such conflict of interest exists, pointing out that his opinion has nothing to do with his job. :>

You can't even trust the Red Hat drones out there.

The good thing is that you may eventually get a lot of old-time Linux users who refuse to follow the systemd bandwagon. Aside from the FUD and propaganda, there is no technical advantage that systemd has. Their services? I can get everything started with my own scripts, just as I have done so the last 10 years. Of course I don't use shell scripts, I am not crazy - I use Ruby.


----------



## Beastie7 (Sep 20, 2015)

I wonder, why the community insists on trailing behind Linux DEs' instead of helping with Lumina development. Is it a C++ thing?


----------



## Oko (Sep 20, 2015)

Crivens said:


> Shame the ZFS did not work out for them


Well apparently Apple lawyers don't feel as comfortable with CDDL as FreeBSD crew. Even a rumour of Oracle law suit against the FreeBSD Foundation will be an instant dead sentence to the whole FreeBSD project.


----------



## Crivens (Sep 20, 2015)

Oko said:


> Even a rumour of Oracle law suit against the FreeBSD Foundation will be an instant dead sentence to the whole FreeBSD project.


I think this is unlikely. The big time users of FreeBSD would need to make a business decision and check what the price might be to switch to, say, Ubuntu. Users like NetFlix, for example. It would then make a good bussiness decision for them to spend $1 less than that sum as a donation for any legal batttle for the FreeBSD foundation as that would save them one dollar. Oracle would find the target not as soft as they might have thought, and then their PR department would also tell them that this battle draws a lot of bad publicity in their direction. Oracle should, prior to any such law suit, check for the outcome in terms of game theory.

All of that depends on rational thinking management, of course


----------



## Beastie7 (Sep 20, 2015)

I thought Oracle could sue only if the actual implementation infringes on their patents. Wasn't this part of the formation of the OpenZFS project in the first place? I know FreeBSDs' implementation of ZFS is quite different than the others.


----------

