CentOS - Oct 2018 - What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?

On 17/10/18 1:25 am, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> That said, if one is strongly willing to stay away from systemd, and 
> not to such extent into Linux as to needing an advise on that, I would 
> recommend to take a look at non-Linux system, specifically BSD 
> descendants (FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc). Their kernel is not as heavy 
> (big,resource demanding) as Linux kernel, and you can do pretty much 
> everything one needs (except maybe computer games, although these will 
> fall mostly into MS Windows scope). I for one have FreeBSD on my 
> laptop (with alternative boot into Debian, the last being systemd 
> though...).
It's starting to look as though the BSD camp may embrace systemd sooner 
rather than later:

https://youtu.be/6AeWu1fZ7bY?t=1537 - I like this bit the most in that 
video!

But do watch the entire presentation - good stuff.

On 17/10/2018 10:11, Anthony K wrote:
> It's starting to look as though the BSD camp may embrace systemd
> sooner rather than later:
>
> https://youtu.be/6AeWu1fZ7bY?t=1537 - I like this bit the most in that
> video!
>
> But do watch the entire presentation - good stuff.
I've listened to the video and no, it doesn't say any such thing. The
video does not say that BSD is going to use systemd.

What the speaker in the video certainly does point out is that service
and system management is a good thing overall and that there are better
ways of doing this than SysVinit. However, most people have not disputed
this.

A lot of people, including very many of those who greatly dislike
systemd, accept that SysVinit could and should be replaced or improved
upon. It's just that they do not think, for a variety of entirely
legitimate reasons, that systemd is the right software to do this. Even
on Devuan, for example, many people prefer to use init software other
than SysVinit.

The speaker says, amongst others thing, "what I find amusing
occasionally is that a lot of people who bitch about systemd, don't
bitch about launchd but I find that funny because systemd is launchd in
concept" but he should not be surprised. The people who complain about
systemd are doing so because (a) launchd is not being forced on them as
systemd is in practice (in their view), and/or (b) because they disagree
with systemd's specific architectural choices and/or their view of its
quality.

I should add that the speaker also massively over-simplifies opposition
to systemd on the basis that he incorrectly perceives it to be
opposition to change. He seems to ignore the fact that, as above, there
are substantive objections to the specific architecture and quality of
systemd, not merely objections to change with no deeper reason. He
further seems to ignore the fact that many people objecting to systemd
would nevertheless favour more modern system/service management.

The speaker goes on to give his reasons as to why bringing service and
system management to BSD is a good thing. As I point out above, many
people could well agree with this, even many people who dislike the
specific implementation of systemd on Linux.

To be clear, objections to systemd on Linux largely seem to me to be
about the specific implementation and perceived quality (and, dare I say
it, personalities), rather than either fear or change or objection to
modern system/service management.

The speaker explicitly points out: "What can we [BSD] get from systemd?
I'm not saying that we should adopt it [...] I don't think that trying
to directly adopt system is going to work for us". He then goes on to
point out why implementing a BSD kernel-based systems/service management
component that is inspired by some of systemd's advantages (or, to put
it another way, the advantages that any modern system/service management
facility could and should offer) would be a good thing. As I say, many
people, including many systemd-doubters or haters, would not object to this.

He is not, however, saying that systemd will be used on BSD. He's just
saying that the principles of system/service management are good ones
and that software other than systemd could implement them. And that's
exactly what a lot of systemd's critics say, too.


-- 
Mark Rousell

This is indeed good news (that BSD isn't necessarily going to adopt
systemd).


Leroy Tennison
Network Information/Cyber Security Specialist
E: leroy at datavoiceint.com
2220 Bush Dr
McKinney, Texas
75070
www.datavoiceint.com
TThis message has been sent on behalf
of a company that is part of the Harris Operating Group of
Constellation Software Inc. These companies are listed
here
.
If you prefer not to be contacted by Harris
Operating Group
please notify us
.
This message is intended exclusively for the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication
may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are
not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print,
retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the
message.

________________________________________
From: CentOS <centos-bounces at centos.org> on behalf of Mark Rousell
<mark.rousell at signal100.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:03 AM
To: centos at centos.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between systemd and
non-systemd Linux distros?

On 17/10/2018 10:11, Anthony K wrote:
> It's starting to look as though the BSD camp may embrace systemd
> sooner rather than later:
>
> https://youtu.be/6AeWu1fZ7bY?t=1537 - I like this bit the most in that
> video!
>
> But do watch the entire presentation - good stuff.
I've listened to the video and no, it doesn't say any such thing. The
video does not say that BSD is going to use systemd.

What the speaker in the video certainly does point out is that service
and system management is a good thing overall and that there are better
ways of doing this than SysVinit. However, most people have not disputed
this.

A lot of people, including very many of those who greatly dislike
systemd, accept that SysVinit could and should be replaced or improved
upon. It's just that they do not think, for a variety of entirely
legitimate reasons, that systemd is the right software to do this. Even
on Devuan, for example, many people prefer to use init software other
than SysVinit.

The speaker says, amongst others thing, "what I find amusing
occasionally is that a lot of people who bitch about systemd, don't
bitch about launchd but I find that funny because systemd is launchd in
concept" but he should not be surprised. The people who complain about
systemd are doing so because (a) launchd is not being forced on them as
systemd is in practice (in their view), and/or (b) because they disagree
with systemd's specific architectural choices and/or their view of its
quality.

I should add that the speaker also massively over-simplifies opposition
to systemd on the basis that he incorrectly perceives it to be
opposition to change. He seems to ignore the fact that, as above, there
are substantive objections to the specific architecture and quality of
systemd, not merely objections to change with no deeper reason. He
further seems to ignore the fact that many people objecting to systemd
would nevertheless favour more modern system/service management.

The speaker goes on to give his reasons as to why bringing service and
system management to BSD is a good thing. As I point out above, many
people could well agree with this, even many people who dislike the
specific implementation of systemd on Linux.

To be clear, objections to systemd on Linux largely seem to me to be
about the specific implementation and perceived quality (and, dare I say
it, personalities), rather than either fear or change or objection to
modern system/service management.

The speaker explicitly points out: "What can we [BSD] get from systemd?
I'm not saying that we should adopt it [...] I don't think that trying
to directly adopt system is going to work for us". He then goes on to
point out why implementing a BSD kernel-based systems/service management
component that is inspired by some of systemd's advantages (or, to put
it another way, the advantages that any modern system/service management
facility could and should offer) would be a good thing. As I say, many
people, including many systemd-doubters or haters, would not object to this.

He is not, however, saying that systemd will be used on BSD. He's just
saying that the principles of system/service management are good ones
and that software other than systemd could implement them. And that's
exactly what a lot of systemd's critics say, too.


--
Mark Rousell




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS at centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Oct 17, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell at signal100.com>
wrote:
> 
> launchd is not being forced on them as systemd is in practice
Try doing without launchd on macOS.

If you think that?s irrelevant, count the number of MacBooks at the next FreeBSD
conference you attend.

For an init system to gain sufficient momentum, it must be the default, with no
easy way to avoid it.  Without that, you get things like:

1. TrueOS, where major non-core services still have no OpenRC script despite
OpenRC being the default for about a year.  There were no Samba or NUT OpenRC
scripts the last time I tried TrueOS, for example.  Even if that?s changed, it?s
still a reflection of the fundamental barrier to adoption that I?m talking about
here.

2. Lazy third-party Linux packages that still use SysVInit scripts, because
they?re just forward-porting old packages with minimal effort.
> I should add that the speaker also massively over-simplifies opposition
> to systemd on the basis that he incorrectly perceives it to be
> opposition to change. He seems to ignore the fact that, as above, there
> are substantive objections to the specific architecture and quality of
> systemd, not merely objections to change with no deeper reason.
While there certainly are objective problems with systemd?s design and
implementation, it is basic human psychology that many people will not move to a
newer system despite piles of advantages.

The major BSDs are fundamentally conservative at the project management level,
so I believe this tendency is stronger in the BSD user population than elsewhere
in the IT world.  It?s a form of self-selection bias: the BSDs are run
conservatively, so they attract a user base that is also technologically
conservative, from which come the next generation of core developers, who
therefore continue to run the project conservatively.  Consequently, the major
BSDs are even more conservative than the Enterprise Linuxes.

If it were otherwise, TrueOS would have long since taken over the FreeBSD world,
and nvi wouldn?t still be missing proper UTF-8 support.
> many people objecting to systemd
> would nevertheless favour more modern system/service management.
I?d love to see that quantified.

Alternatives to the BSD rc init system are readily available, yet I think if you
were to survey actual use, you?d find that over 99% of BSD boxes use the stock
init system.

Change has to be forced from the center out on this kind of thing.  Diffusion
from the outside in takes too long.

The question in my mind is how long it?s going to take for the major BSDs to
make such a change at the center, so that the majority of new installs will use
a modern init system.  The systemd project started in 2005, and wasn?t widely
deployed as the default until about 4 years ago.  If past is prologue, I think
this won?t happen on the BSDs for another decade or so, if ever.

Example: FreeBSD is just now moving to pkg-in-base in earnest, giving it
features I first saw in the default install of Debian in about 1995.