# launchd and systemd



## jklami (Mar 24, 2016)

Please tell me you're not going for launchd or systemd. I have nightmares of FreeBSD migrating to systemd or launchd and I wake up sweating and screaming. Let me elaborate (rant):

In my job I do administrator work on Windows machines. There's been so many times I've wished I was a janitor instead. Often solely because of svchost.exe. For most end users it doesn't make a difference if a process is running under svchost.exe or not. For administrators it makes a huge difference. For example, if a standard office Windows machine is using memory over 1G when no application is running, it's a sign of a problem. So you go to Task Manager and try to look up a process taking that memory. If you're lucky, it's not svchost.exe and you can go about your day, maintaining your zen.
However, if it does happen to run under svchost.exe, your day is most likely ruined. It's not easy to pinpoint what process is taking all that memory. You're able to see which processes are running under specific svchost.exe but it won't tell you what resources they're using and how much. There can be dozens of them processes and you'd have to isolate them all one by one to find the right one. Soooo, 9 times out of 10 it's quicker to dd your backup image and just let the machine reload and install all the updates overnight. The next day you can spend reinstalling all the programs and their updates. Well, it's not so bad when you're getting paid. But this is not acceptable if we are talking about my own computers at home. I do not want to waste my free time fixing problems that exist only because of a horrid operating system. And boy do we have those now.

I've understood that distributions NOT using systemd are now limited to handful, such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Slackware and Linux Mint. Pretty much everything else out there is now using systemd. I really wonder why. The reasoning coming from developers of systemd is just a bit off. They say it's to speed up booting, to "unify" Linux distributions and to make software development easier for 3rd party contributors such as Gnome.

The main developer of systemd has said that developers should only read about Linux API and just ignore anything POSIX related. Wow. Just wow. Nothing says "unify" quite like "ignore POSIX". Anyway, another reason for it is that init is old and systemd aims to replace it being something better suited for constantly evolving technology. Excuse me but init has been working well for over 40 years and besides, if by this "constantly evolving technology" we mean for instance wireless communications, that technology has existed for over 100 years. Yes. When you pick up your smartphone and make a phone call, send a text, use your 3G or LTE, Wi-Fi, you're actually just using a RADIO. I a very similar manner, computers haven't changed that much either. They come with more memory, better processors, but their basic design is still the same and they still calculate the same mathematics. I can understand that kernels evolve, but init? Why does that need to evolve?

This systemd approach is in conflict with traditional UNIX philosophy. I don't know why anyone reasonable would challenge that concept. Why replace a simple program that has done it's job well for over 40 years, with some bloated, poorly tested concept, that doesn't *really* do the job better? I'm confident it doesn't, I have measured and compared the boot times of Windows 10, FreeBSD 10.2 on a dual-boot machine, and just for fun on the side, iOS on a old iPhone 4.
FreeBSD is the fastest to boot, although Windows is considerably faster if I shutdown Windows and then boot it. When I shutdown FreeBSD and boot Windows, it takes longer to boot than FreeBSD. Still faster than the iPhone. So I don't buy it, launchd or systemd approach won't be a difference maker especially not on a new machine with SSD drives. Windows 10 shows that a fast boot is really just a matter of certain kind of hibernation. It does boot very fast if not used on a dual-boot machine. On UNIX it wouldn't be too difficult to have a Gnome/anydesktop program that just logs out users and then hibernates. Windows 10 essentially does this as "shutdown".

What really baffles me about systemd is this idea that the operating system needs to change to make things easier for 3rd party developers and users. If we were to take that path, why not just use Windows then. All these Linux distributors who migrated to systemd, they just want a free "windows" on their desktops. They don't seem to care that there are people who in general despise the Windows approach, mostly because they have to deal with all the problems it creates, every day as administrators for companies, moms, wifes, kids, rest of the family and friends.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel that traditional UNIX philosophy has been cornered. Apple is marketing OSX as UNIX, it's hard for me to think of it as such though. Launchd alone makes it feel distant to me. It distantly resembles UNIX. Now most Linux distributors are on the same path. It's all going to hell now, isn't it?


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Mar 24, 2016)

jklami said:


> Please tell me you're not going for launchd...



Some folks are playing around with it, namely the NextBSD project, but there's no real push toward accepting it in mainline FreeBSD.



> ...or systemd.



systemd's agenda to tightly integrate itself into the Linux kernel makes that impossible.



> I've understood that distributions NOT using systemd are now limited to handful, such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD...



Woah, hold up. These are not "distributions." Each is a distinct and complete operating system. While they share a common heritage, they have little technical and no historical relationship to Linux, and each has fundamental differences from the others.


----------



## marino (Mar 24, 2016)

Technically the "D" in "BSD" is "Distribution".  It's actually correct to call them this.   I know it sounds Linuxy but they basically stole it.


----------



## jklami (Mar 24, 2016)

Well that is somewhat comforting to hear. To clarify by "distributions" I mean operating systems modelled after the early Unix distributions, as in Software Distribution. Not implying that BSD and Linux are sharing code nor design. Well, not anymore anyway.


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Mar 24, 2016)

marino@ said:


> Technically the "D" in "BSD" is "Distribution". It's actually correct to call them this.



Yes, in a very literal sense, but no one refers to them that way. You're talking about _the_ Berkeley Software Distribution. There originally was only one. The *BSD in these names is pretty much just an acknowledgement that these new operating systems descend from that original. Having the surname "Johnson" doesn't make you John's son, and having *BSD doesn't make you one of many Berkeley Software Distributions.


----------



## marino (Mar 24, 2016)

It's still a set of programs/libraries/kernel/userland that are carefully selected and distributed as a unit.  The main difference is that this selection is integrated with the kernel development.

So yes, literally each BSD is a unique distribution.  But yes, normally "distribution" implies linux but it's not wrong to refer to BSD as distributions (IMO but I think that's an easy position to defend)


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 25, 2016)

jklami said:


> I mean operating systems modelled after the early Unix distributions


Well, FreeBSD started life as a copy of ATT Unix so it's not just modelled after it.

Your complaints show so much detention among Linux users, it's obvious it's not something FreeBSD should become involved in for that reason alone. Linux seems to jump on every bandwagon that comes along while the BSDs give things a thoughtful process.


----------



## zspider (Mar 25, 2016)

I don't think systemd will ever be found in a native FreeBSD - barring some kind of invasion. 

Don't know about launchd, but I don't think many are interested in that either.

Linux seems to be becoming something else other than UNIX and that's fine - gives the hamsters something to gnaw on.As long as this project stays the course, I could care less.


----------



## jklami (Mar 25, 2016)

Comforting your words are. But I have real reason for concern because even Debian migrated to systemd, sounds unbelievable but they did it because Ubuntu did it. That was enough for some and now we have a Devuan fork. Debian didn't even use BSD style init. Things are that bad. Before I really believed that Slackware and Debian were the untouchable ones, but times change it seems. I believe this needs to be taken seriously. If it can happen to Debian then it can happen to anyone.

In order to know how to make a proper operating system you need system administrator experience. Coincidentally the guys who left Debian to start Devuan, have that. Unix was built by system administrators, that's why the long lasting philosophy behind it is what it is. Users and developers must be educated about these issues. I think we need system administrators to write more books about the philosophy, not just manuals. Maybe hiring a philosopher for the FreeBSD project would be a good idea. I hear Norway has a state philosopher working for the state oil companies, his/her job is to think how the surplus would most benefit the people of Norway. When working for future generations, having a good philosopher around might be a good idea?


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Mar 25, 2016)

WARNING: Boring history stuff ahead...



jklami said:


> Unix was built by system administrators...



While this is true, what they were administering at first wasn't an operating/computer system, because they didn't have one yet. They crafted an operating system so they could better manage telecommunications. From 1954 to 1982, AT&T's Bell System was sanctioned as a "natural monopoly" that controlled virtually  all telephone traffic in the US (including teletype/telefax transmissions), and handled a large percentage of content distribution for radio and television conglomerates as well. They needed a way to manage this extremely dense and diverse traffic across their massive, continent-wide telecom network. Unix was part of that solution.

The early proof-of-concept Unix was eventually rewritten in C in order to be machine-portable, because the 1954 agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bell System forbade the latter from developing, manufacturing, or selling its own computer hardware. So they had to remain open to the possibility of needing to change hardware platforms, and do so without needing to create and learn something new all over again. That portability---and the reputation of Bell Labs---is what made Unix such an appealing research platform, which in turn contributed to the development of BSD and the commercial adoption of Unix.

I'd be interested to know just how much managing a massive telecom network---comprising many different interconnecting components that each served multiple roles depending on context---played a role and gave insights into the fundamental design of the Unix operating system. Sounds like a good project for a masochistic grad student.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 25, 2016)

jklami said:


> Unix was built by system administrators


No. Unix was created by computer scientists and software engineers at Bell Labs (ATT).



jklami said:


> I think we need system administrators to write more books about the philosophy, not just manuals.


There are lots of them around.


----------



## Crivens (Mar 25, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> Linux seems to jump on every bandwagon that comes along while the BSDs give things a thoughtful process.


Yes, things get interesting when the bandwagons are going into different directions at the same time. Linux, for example, tries to be small and perfomant while carying the coffee pot and kitchen sink in the same hand.



jklami said:


> If it can happen to Debian then it can happen to anyone.


 No - if it can happen to Debian then it could have happened to Debian. Debian switching over because of Ubuntu is also more the tail wagging the dog - Debian was IMHO more concerned with the impact systemd would have on the user land and that they would loose out because they would need more efford to have stuff which relied on systemd. They had that choice (we have not, so no problem in being adamant about this). We will have to spend more work on workarounds as more and more code relies on being run on a VAX - ^h^h run on Linux/systemd. They could have said "No", but did not. Why they did not is their burden to carry. I consider systemd a marketing tool.


----------



## Maxnix (Mar 26, 2016)

jklami said:


> If it can happen to Debian then it can happen to anyone.


Not true. How you already said, Slackware is still untouched. And even Gentoo and Crux are systemd-free.


jklami said:


> In order to know how to make a proper operating system you need system administrator experience.


No, in order to know how to make a proper operating system you need computer science knowledge. Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were scientists, and then users of their product. You may need system administrator experience to make it more comfortable to use.


----------



## angus71 (Mar 26, 2016)

I heard about another linux distribution without systemd, void linux. Did not test it myself... yet.


----------



## hitest (Mar 26, 2016)

Maxnix said:


> Not true. How you already said, Slackware is still untouched.



I'm very happy that Patrick is standing his ground against the sytemd push.  I would be surprised to see systemd in FreeBSD.


----------



## wblock@ (Mar 26, 2016)

Given that systemd is LGPL-licensed, the odds of it ever being included in FreeBSD base are essentially zero.  The difficulty will be in remaining compatible with software that expects a systemd API.


----------



## zirias@ (Mar 27, 2016)

Maxnix said:


> jklami said:
> 
> 
> > In order to know how to make a proper operating system you need system administrator experience.
> ...


Really can't stress _this_ enough. A system administrator could never succeed in creating an operating system. Just the complexity of the whole system requires some architecture skills, while writing a decent kernel and low-level libraries to go with it requires some special OS construction knowledge.

But, jklami could have a "partial point" here in that it probably helps to get some admin experience into the project if simple and powerful administration is a design goal


----------



## Maxnix (Mar 27, 2016)

Zirias said:


> But, jklami could have a "partial point" here in that it probably helps to get some admin experience into the project if simple and powerful administration is a design goal


Yup, right. That's because I said that system administrator experience is needed to make it more comfortable to use.


----------



## NewGuy (Mar 27, 2016)

jklami said:


> Comforting your words are. But I have real reason for concern because even Debian migrated to systemd, sounds unbelievable but they did it because Ubuntu did it.



Your time-line is backward. Debian adopted systemd first. Ubuntu only switched to using systemd because their upstream project (Debian) did. Ubuntu was actually one of the last of the mainstream Linux distributions to adopt systemd.

There are a number of Linux distributions which still haven't switched. Linux Mint, for example, uses SysV init. Slackware, Gentoo, Void, CRUX... Manjaro has an OpenRC edition. In the Linux community systemd is wide spread in the mainstream projects, but there are still plenty of smaller distros holding out.

But as others have pointed out, systemd will never be adopted by FreeBSD because systemd is designed specifically to work on Linux only. The developers of systemd won't even accept patches to port their software to FreeBSD so it'll never happen.

launchd is a possibility, but the launchd project has been around for ages and still is not included in mainline FreeBSD. If it is adopted, it will be very slowly and carefully to avoid regressions.


----------



## aht0 (Mar 27, 2016)

angus71 said:


> I heard about another linux distribution without systemd, void linux. Did not test it myself... yet.



Manjaro, Alpine (OpenRC init)


----------



## ronaldlees (Mar 27, 2016)

No worries, it's just a Lord of the Rings thing.  

Luckily, I have no plans to  put systemd on my RTOS.


----------



## jklami (Mar 27, 2016)

ANOKNUSA said:


> WARNING: Boring history stuff ahead...
> While this is true, what they were administering at first wasn't an operating/computer system, because they didn't have one yet. They crafted an operating system so they could better manage telecommunications.



Being a system administrator was part of Ken Thompson's degree. Ken was not a God you know, he was taught by someone. Unix was based on Multics. Ken and Dennis went to school. Ken and Dennis had system administrator experience before they begun developing Unix, B and C. There really is administrator experience that they have. Plan9 is not just Unix with forced quotas because they thought it's easier code.


----------



## jklami (Mar 28, 2016)

Crivens said:


> Yes, things get interesting when the bandwagons are going into different directions at the same time. Linux, for example, tries to be small and perfomant while carying the coffee pot and kitchen sink in the same hand.
> 
> No - if it can happen to Debian then it could have happened to Debian.



If it can happen to Debian then it can happen to FreeBSD. It may be that members of the Open Source community have bigger egos than they'd like to admit. It can totally happen to FreeBSD and now I begin to worry if I'm to late.


----------



## zirias@ (Mar 28, 2016)

Dear jklami, what exactly is your point? "administrator experience"? Well yes, as I said, this could help making a system "nice" for administrators, but it's not even a tenth of the game! Google for "implementing a counting semaphore using binary semaphores" and try to identify all the papers claiming to do that, later proven wrong ... they were all written by capable system engineers ... to just get an *idea* of the technical problems at the lowest level of an operating system. And then, don't forget about the SIZE of a project like an operating system -- you will need detailed *blueprints* about what components should exist, what is their responsibility and how they should interact -- work for a software architect! The reason *UNIX* is/was great is maybe 5 to 10 percent the administrator experience ... everything else is just special OS building knowledge and software architecture. *TL;DR:* for designing an OS, I'd take at least one administrator as a stakeholder on the team ... but I'd make sure to have several experienced OS experts and software architects ...

You brought the topic of systemd on the table. As this thread already revealed, systemd will never be an issue on FreeBSD. But IMHO, systemd is the wrong answer to the correct question. We really NEED some reliable management and control over system processes. And well, some bright people should think about how to implement a solution to this problem that still meets the "separation of concerns" principle. We will see. systemd is (IMHO) NOT the answer.


----------



## jklami (Mar 28, 2016)

Maxnix said:


> Not true. How you already said, Slackware is still untouched. And even Gentoo and Crux are systemd-free.
> 
> No, in order to know how to make a proper operating system you need computer science knowledge. Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were scientists, and then users of their product. You may need system administrator experience to make it more comfortable to use.



Being a system administrator was part of Ken's degree. Why would they continue to make operating systems comfortable for admins unless they were one?


----------



## jklami (Mar 28, 2016)

I guess I'm just really bad explaining myself. This area is for feedback I think. I really love FreeBSD and I don't want it to change. This is my worry. Since Debian changed I worry that FreeBSD could easily change into something similar. Only a handful of "distributions" now have init anymore. This is a huge change and it came out of the blue.


----------



## jklami (Mar 28, 2016)

Zirias said:


> binary semaphores



Binary is really just short for "binary numeral system" it's nothing but a different way to present numbers. Computers use binary because it's result is always 1 or 0. It's because computers use electric currents. Computers only understand yes or no. You can translate binary, hex, or decimal, very easily using the Windows calculator. It can translate the most used systems within the standard positional numeral systems. Coincidentally they are used in computing science a lot. Converting binary to hex, binary to decimal, hex to binary, hex to decimal, so on. My point was that I do not want to use Linux nor Windows systems at home. I have no time for that. If you are kind enough, you would listen to what I have to say and perhaps make a good judgement based on a real thought.


----------



## jklami (Mar 28, 2016)

Zirias said:


> But IMHO, systemd is the wrong answer to the correct question. We really NEED some reliable management and control over system processes.



Oddly reliable management and control has happened for over 40 years. We do need something like that in Windows, that rules most of the world.


----------



## zirias@ (Mar 28, 2016)

jklami said:


> Binary is really just short for "binary numeral system" it's nothing but a different way to present numbers.


Just read the papers ... and the rebuttals. Binary seems utterly easy -- it is NOT as soon as multiprocessing comes to the table.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Mar 28, 2016)

An operating system developed without concern for administration doesn't sound possible to me.


----------



## wblock@ (Mar 28, 2016)

Not sure where this thread is going, but good scientists make things possible.  Good engineers take those things and make them practical.


----------



## Maxnix (Mar 28, 2016)

jklami said:


> Being a system administrator was part of Ken's degree. Why would they continue to make operating systems comfortable for admins unless they were one?


Indeed no one is saying that Ken and Dennis didn't have admin knowledge.  What we are pointing out is that admin skills are the minimal part of the process to build an OS.


----------



## Maxnix (Mar 28, 2016)

OJ said:


> An operating system developed without concern for administration doesn't sound possible to me.


Yup, it would be like building a car without controls.  However, controls are the final part. You need engineers to make the engine first.


----------



## Crivens (Mar 28, 2016)

Maxnix said:


> Yup, it would be like building a car without controls.  However, controls are the final part. You need engineers to make the engine first.


To make an analogy to the "you need administrators" point - imagine a F1 race car designed and build by the drivers. And only the drivers. Yes, you need to know how to drive the thing if you design it, but you do not need to be a total expert at it. You need to know how that thing works when you are an expert driver, but you do not need to be an expert mechanic or engineer. So in designing an operating system, I would take administrators into the team, as well as hardware engineers and architects. But I would also make sure that none of them would have the last say in any matters.

And as far as systemd on FreeBSD might be an issue, it will never be able to run on the kernel. The people designing the thing felt it was a good idea to make absolute sure that thing would only run on Linux, using a GNU user land. I would doubt it could work with anything non-glibc. So the problem we face is not that systemd suddenly comes to town, but that all applications upstream fall into "all the world is a VAX" traphole and take systemd for granted everywhere. That would seriously impact the available applications. And maybe that, among other reasons, is the key point RedHad is making with pushing this. Making sure that nothing but Linux will have good support for Gnome[3+] for example, and that they be the one with the best support for their abomination of an init system.


----------



## Erik Martino Hansen (Apr 9, 2016)

jklami said:


> Comforting your words are. But I have real reason for concern because even Debian migrated to systemd, sounds unbelievable but they did it because Ubuntu did it. ...



It was the other way around, Ubuntu followed because they are downstream of Debian.


----------



## zirias@ (Apr 10, 2016)

jklami said:


> Oddly reliable management and control has happened for over 40 years. We do need something like that in Windows, that rules most of the world.


Not really. What's almost completely missing is monitoring of the processes. BSD init offers /etc/ttys (the name already suggest it's intended just for tty-controlling processes), SYSV init offers /etc/inittab. Both are useless for anything a bit more complex, so most of the process launching is done from scripts. This offers all the flexibility you need, but monitoring gets out of scope. systemd tries to solve this shortcoming, which would be nice, but ... it tries to solve tons of utterly unrelated (or even non-existent) problems as well, tightly integrated, and, as if this wasn't bad enough already, it does it in a "linux-only way". That's what I meant when I said it was the wrong answer to the right question.


----------



## zspider (Apr 10, 2016)

jklami said:


> I guess I'm just really bad explaining myself. This area is for feedback I think. I really love FreeBSD and I don't want it to change. This is my worry. Since Debian changed I worry that FreeBSD could easily change into something similar. Only a handful of "distributions" now have init anymore. This is a huge change and it came out of the blue.



I hope that never happens either, but if those people won't come to a realization of how they ended up in that situation to begin with, then it is hopeless and we will see the process repeat itself. 

That means recognition that it wasn't just someone else's fault, but likely theirs too.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 10, 2016)

Fortunately, FreeBSD devs are smart enough that they won't do this just because Linux is doing it. Competing with Windows, and trying to beat it, is not FreeBSD's goal like it is for Linux.


----------



## zirias@ (Apr 10, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> Competing with Windows, and trying to beat it, is not FreeBSD's goal like it is for Linux.


There *are* people still claiming this isn't Linux' goal, either, and IMHO they are right, but we will see if they somehow manage to be heard again ....

On a side note, with all the strategic changes happening over there at Redmond, maybe all this "competition" thinking could be leveraged a bit soon ...


----------



## SR_Ind (Apr 22, 2016)

jklami said:


> I guess I'm just really bad explaining myself. This area is for feedback I think. *I really love FreeBSD and I don't want it to change.* This is my worry. Since Debian changed I worry that FreeBSD could easily change into something similar. Only a handful of "distributions" now have init anymore. This is a huge change and it came out of the blue.



Only constant thing in life is change.

Take a lead and steer the way you would want your platform to evolve. Or someone would pick it and run with it.

FreeBSD has potential for so much.

If you think it is the perfect system and nobody needs to tinker with it then maybe it has reached its evolutionary dead end then it will be ousted by those that emerge as a fitter alternative.

However, not everyone sees FreeBSD as you or many with similar thought process see it.

Many would like to see features added to see FreeBSD go places hitherto not thought of.

As someone has posted about the way Microsoft is moving (this thread and other thread), should show us the trends. OS's themselves will be of lesser importance in future. They will just be the staging grounds for consuming products and services hosted elsewhere. What's on table from FreeBSD?


----------



## Crivens (Apr 22, 2016)

All this stargazing depends on the people who will be affected. Trends are followed by those who with to follow, the rest does not.


SR_Ind said:


> What's on table from FreeBSD?


For me, a fat big crate, peacefully humming away in the evening, doing the computing, archiving and processing I do not trust the _klaut*_ with. Privacy has a value, and thus a price has to be payed. Sadly it is payed to keep it, not when you get deprived of it. And anyway, it is payed in the wrong direction.

* a pun, the german word is spoken as you would say _cloud_, but it means _theft_. Which applies to the data you store there.


----------



## zspider (Apr 22, 2016)

SR_Ind said:


> Only constant thing in life is change.
> 
> Take a lead and steer the way you would want your platform to evolve. Or someone would pick it and run with it.
> 
> ...



Well I won't be cloud computing and neither will many others here. My files are mine and will be stored on my hardware. If this project ceases serving my needs and meeting my expectations it will be dumped and that you can count on.

You can time travel back to the 1970's and live off a mainframe, the rest of us will not.


----------



## jklami (Apr 23, 2016)

"You can time travel back to the 1970's and live off a mainframe, the rest of us will not."

Office 365 (cloud) is a mainframe. We have OneDrive, Google Drive, iCloud at least.

I'm an admin in Finland and we have pretty much everything on OneDrive. Everyone is freaking out, for a reason.

I don't know how you understood this, but schools in my country are storing everything on OneDrive despite legislation. It's easy, they've been told to do it, they have no idea that it's illegal.

We have 2 ways to deal with this:

1. Trust no one
2. We are all one

I support #2 and I'm really happy that you are so kind and understanding. Kaya.


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Apr 23, 2016)

jklami said:


> We have 2 ways to deal with this:
> 
> 1. Trust no one
> 2. We are all one



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Incidentally, OneDrive, iCloud, and Office365 can only be used with specific proprietary operating systems that---by sheer coincidence, I'm sure---were developed or approved by the same companies offering those services. If I didn't know any better, I'd think the exceedingly wealthy and powerful business interests that created those services had something other than a platform-agnostic future of mutual respect in mind...

EDIT: If you want a better, FreeBSD-related example of what might be, look at Tarsnap. Founded by a FreeBSD developer, but usable by anyone running any Unix-like operating system, and leaving the client/customer in complete control of their own data.


----------



## zspider (Apr 23, 2016)

jklami said:


> We have 2 ways to deal with this:
> 
> 1. Trust no one
> 2. We are all one
> ...



I'm not sure if trying to say you're for, or against the cloud computing business. But the mainframe statement was not directed at you.

However the only way I'm surrendering privacy, control and autonomy is by my cold dead hands.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Apr 30, 2016)

angus71 said:


> I heard about another linux distribution without systemd, void linux. Did not test it myself... yet.



I've been using this for the last few days. It uses runit, which is basically an updated version of djb's daemon tools. Here's a startup script that I wrote:


```
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/dnsblock server -v 2>&1
```

systemd, for all its claims of "simplicity", looks like:


```
[Unit]
Description=dnsblock
Wants=local-fs.target network.target
After=local-fs.target network.target

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

[Service]
Type=simple
User=root
Group=root
ExecStart=dnsblock
KillMode=process
Restart=on-success
PrivateTmp=true
StandardOutput=syslog
```

My system boots in ~6 seconds. About the same as systemd.

Other than this, it's a very "DIY" system. Which is good in some ways, but not so good in others. For example I spent some time mucking about getting the fonts to look nice (I eventually ended up copying /etc/fonts/conf.d from an Ubunty system) and getting things like pulseaudio running (currently running it as the unsupported "systemwide mode", since the "user mode" doesn't work properly, but is required for Firefox to work properly).

I also installed the musl libc version, which may have been a mistake. One of the reasons I run Linux in the first place (and not OpenBSD) is so that I can run Linux binaries. However, "Linux binaries" are pretty much always linked against GNU libc which is not binary compatibly with musl libc


----------



## getopt (Apr 30, 2016)

wblock@ said:


> Not sure where this thread is going, but good scientists make things possible.  Good engineers take those things and make them practical.


At a first look such sentences are agreeable when reading.

"Good scientists" developed atomic and biological weapons, list extensible.
"Good engineers" made cheating software possible, list extensible

A discourse about what can be considered as "good" often unveils different camps of interests. 
Even what is considered as progress can be disputed.

Regarding Systemd I hope that FreeBSD can be defended. 
Otherwise I hope for a fork "SystemdFree".


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 30, 2016)

Arguing about whether "good" means "competent" or "morally acceptable" indicates that this thread has run its course.


----------

