The amount of information and posts from people that are vehemently
opposing System D isn't just a scenario where anti-System D people are
being vocal about it and the people content with System D aren't. It
looked like that to me at first, but the more I researched it and the
more it came up, the more it's obvious that System D brings with it
some major issues which should be discussed on this mailing list. I've
never before seen as large of an opposition and amount of anger in
relation to a software component of any OS until the System D debate
started, and it's on every mailing list and every news site just
about. Now, with SUSE, System D is mandatory so everyone's stuck with,
not to mention GNOME is dependent on it.
And to Ken Schneider, telling me to take this issue to the Soapbox
forum is actually rude and immature. You are not here to police the
list, even though maybe you get a little rise out of telling people
what they should do. If you don't like the topic, then don't post or
read it; it's very simple. This is a technical issue which has been
discussed on this list before, and the discussion needs to continue as
it's certainly not over. Below are some comments from the article I
linked to above, and obviously they are not people voicing their
dislike for System D just because they're opposed to change or because
they felt like trolling. And this is just one recent article; I can't
count how many Linux admins and developers are talking about how they
don't like System D:
"Just say it proper, sytemd is shit because it has too many problems,
because it does way too much.
I would not have a problem with it (I like the idea of systemd) if it
wasn't trying to reimplement, cron, anacron, iptables, rsyslog,
xinetd, and more.
Seriously somebody has to stop the madness."
"systemd is a windows-esque, monolithic, black box solution. ie. the
opposite of Unix design. It is also p*sspoor by all accounts."
"Ah, you've fallen into the same trap as Debian did. You've mistaken
systemd for a sysvinit replacement. It's not. It's a replacement for
just about the entire operating system stack (the clue is in the
name). Where currently the argument is about "GNU/Linux", it may soon
be better phrased "systemd/Linux".
"The fear is that once you adopt systemd, it will be unreasonably
difficult to replace it with anything better in the future, thanks to
its all-encompassing nature, and the encouragement of *explicit*
dependencies by user-facing software. There's no reason why the Gnome
DE should strictly require one particular init system, but it does."
"There's also the little detail that the permission tree in systemd
("the user doesn't own the process, each process owns its children")
is making a fragging permission mess very quickly which means that
after a while you have to run a whole lot of shit as root, à la
Windows pre-RT, or reboot to clean the mess up.
Systemd is a toy, not a proper tool. I say burn it. Burn it with fire."
"the "fun" part about systemd is how much it wants to do. Explain to
me why an init system needs (yes, it's required) an http server
Systemd is basically trying to take over the entire software stack.
The attitude of the devs speaks volumes about this too. You find a lot
of gems in the kernel mailing lists. The Gentoo Linux forum as been
rather alive about this topic, as the maintainers of the distribution
refuse to make systemd the default (it's an option, but not default)
and a lot of the users agree with the choice.
Systemd is a lot like the windows registry. Lots of binary blobs you
can't read or fix if things go wrong. Most linux users would rather
the system took 10 more seconds to boot and be sure they can fix it if
something goes wrong. It's not like we reboot our machines all the
"Back on topic, I loathe systemd. Alas, it's in RHEL 7 so I now have
to deal with it in Enterprise environments. That said, it has spread
its tentacles far wider since the version in RHEL 7, which essentially
just functions as a poor init replacement. I suppose I should be
thankful for small blessings."
"Funny; I've been administering Linux servers for over a decade and
never had issues reading, writing, using, or understanding SysV init
scripts. The complexity of SysV init scripts is very much overstated
by the systemd advocates, who of course benefit from that perception."
"Sorry, but I am not prepared to. Having dealt with sysvinit, systemd,
and upstart in both development and production environments I must say
I am not at all impressed by the last two. In my experience, upstart
is too flaky and systemd is just too complex and opaque.
Reading or writing sysvinit scripts is not difficult at all if you are
literate. I myself banged up a fair number of upstart->sysvinit
replacements for custom daemons without any significant effort (main
distros provide libraries of very useful shell functions out of the
box, and once you familiarize yourself with a few of those any
difficulties go away). In every single case the switch led to much
improvement in reliability and to much reduction in the frequency of
puzzled WTF expressions on the faces of developers and QA folks, which
was the main purpose of the exercise to start with."
"It might be that sysinit needs a replacement, but systemd is totally
not the answer."
"If Unix has not just survived but also outlived every other operating
system out there they might have got something right. And if there is
one thing that defines Unix, that would be the "do just one thing, and
do it very well" philosophy. Let's not fuck with that, shall we?"
"Well i thought it was April 1st when I heard Gimp was getting systemd
integration, this is just one big fucking piss take IMHO.
You have Mr Pottyring saying systemd is perfect and that any faults
are with downstream implementation. Well I spent several days
wondering why the fuck my Cups server had broken in Debian Sid, only
to find out that systemd requires both IPv4 and 6 to be active else
Cups will not work - I had disabled IPv6 due to previous issues. I
would expect Cups not to work if both stacks were non-functional.
Now I have a Samba server on my main desktop that hangs at shutdown
due to fact that systemd appears to be killing Samba before it
dismounts the networked shares properly - no sane fix so far from what
Yes I know Debian Sid is "unstable" but it was rock solid before this
systemd shit came along. My impression of Sid and Debian itself are
now one of turmoil and I can only hope that Debian reverses its
original decision and boots systemd into touch also, I hope they
seriously have a look at their leaders because they have allowed this
mess to happen.
If Debian stay with systemd then I will go elsewhere. I have already
started playing with FreeBSD and FreeNAS along with OpenBSD too as I'm
quite familiar with these systems anyway and their leaderships are not
prone to follow like sheep at a whim.
Personally I wouldn't want a Debian fork but if that's what it takes
then so be it but the Linux ecosystem is already too fragmented in my
opinion. If there was a fork then sure I'd look into it but whats
really needed is a weed out of the Debian leaders that have got us to
this point, they are setting the distro up for its potential
"Yes I'm testing Slackware too at the minute but I believe they are
currently sitting on the fence regarding this. The thing is that if
systemd gets too invasive (which it already is) then core services and
apps may require more effort than what its worth to run as non-systemd
From what I know, the only non-systemd committed distros (at this
moment in time) are Slackware, Gentoo, Crux and Alpine Linux. I think
out of those I would go with Alpine Linux, a distro which is very much
"I had a similiar problem with an NFS mount in /etc/fstab; systemd was
attempting a mount before network was up and was therefore failing.
There's an 11 month old Bugzilla ticket for this very problem.
The solution was to use a systemd.mount, and this worked. I've had
dhcpcd and udev misbehave as well, in the most basic of
configurations, and I can't troubleshoot it other than seeing in
journalctl that it isn't working.
It works okay for desktop, but you'll see odd things on servers that
have service quirks (the very thing systemd is supposed to make
easy...) like the Samba shutdown issue you have seen.
One could argue these are teething troubles, but Lennart just doesn't
seem to care. That, combined with the increasing sprawl of systemd
gives me great concern."
"I was seriously thinking of giving up on Linux due to systemd.
Not because it couldn't mostly be ignored but because it's really
really awful and just not what linux should have and because the
developers seem to want to impose it on everyone anyway.
Frankly if I want that I might as well use windows.
Hopefully this will go somewhere and kill the nonsense that is systemd
before it ends linux."
"Systemd won't fix poorly implemented services either. Anyone who is
not able to write/test/test-again something for init.d won't magically
have it all work perfectly under another scheme. Upstart seems to be
the least-worst option for something that permits dependency
resolution and parallel starting, but its not perfect either and
really should be extended to include managing the init.d scripts as
well, as realistically there is a lot of stuff that won't get
converted to native jobs any time soon.
At one point the Ubuntu project was doing a really good job of making
a Linux distro that worked, and was fairly sane, but sadly from about
10.04 seems to have lost its way. It really needs someone like that
who is interested in PC use, and not the tablets they fixated upon, to
drive a project sanely.
And never listen to the GUI developers either: look how many stupid
changes have been made to Gnome and Firefox, etc, etc."
Use systemd just as an init replacement and polish it,
http://freshcode.club/projects/uselessd make everything else really
optional. (like all the crap with the binary logs)
Give the boot to Gnome until they get their act together again, and
tell the Gnome developers they can not dictate shit.
To understand Gnome's attitude go to this link, and read the comments
The fun begins at comment n4 from the top"
"There are many possible approaches to the system init process. SysV
init is certainly not the best solution. It has many advantages,
including how simple it is (I have written many init scripts for my
own use), but it is quite messy, and pretty slow.
I have used upstart a bit. This seems just as messy, not as simple,
but the parallelisation does speed things up a fair whack. This is
very welcome on a desktop machine.
I haven't used systemd yet, so I won't comment.
However, when it comes to a server, I want tried and tested solutions
which are simple to administer. I don't care if it takes longer to
boot up, because it will rarely be shut down. My home Debian server,
running on desktop-class hardware, has been running continuously for
nearly a year, and was only shut down then for a hardware upgrade.
Business servers get shut down only when absolutely necessary. A
change from 1min to 30s to boot up makes no difference in most server
What Debian need to do is preserve the choice. Allow people to use
systemd if they want, but leave SysV init available too. I know this
is a more complicated way to do it, but systemd is not suitable for
everyone, especially a lot of their core users."
"Yes. This is something that the "progress for the sake of progress"
crowd just doesn't seem to get. In the domains where Unix has it's
most powerful stronghold, the one overriding consideration is
reliability. It doesn't have to be fast It doesn't have to be fancy.
It doesn't have to be usable by a trained monkey. It needs to be
It's simply insane that it's a server vendor that's pushing this crap."
"We need something better than sysvinit
But systemd obviously isn't it as it seems to create problems."
"The number of other system components that are link-reliant on
systemd is growing. This in itself is the problem. More and more it is
becoming practically impossible to not have systemd in the ecosystem
"Another part of it is the fact that nobody else is contributing large
amounts of manpower to the desktop other than Redhat. When there was
SuSE and Sun as well it wasn't so bad.
He is almost single handedly responsible for me being back on Windows.
(The fact that Alsa can never get ice1712 correct for more than one
-rc of alsa-driver at a time is another part).
Freebsd or OSS4 is perfect for my card.
I have one old Thinkpad that still has Linux but most of it was built
from source (No Alsa / Pulseaudio / systemd / avahi - XiG X (r200) /
OSS4 / pkg-src).
I have a pretty powerful Netbsd VPS and I just use that."
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Ken Schneider - openSUSE
Post by Ken Schneider - openSUSE Post by Sam M.
I came across this article below, and it looks like the System D
implementation on Debian has caused a great deal of havoc and alienation
amongst devs and admins, so a fork is potentially in the works. I was
wondering if a similar interest is also present in the openSUSE community?
Is openSUSE going to become one huge monolith where practically every
package is dependent on each other, and, the user is forced into a corner?
For instance, that atrocious Baloo virus that runs by default on a new KDE
install will start indexing before you allowed it to, and can't be removed
because it's dependent on so many things. Part of it can be removed (last I
checked), but not the entire thing. If things are going to become one big
monolith, which obviously is contrary to the Unix philosophy, why not just
It seems like more people than not don't like System D, and Lennart
Poettering's attitude has been described as rude, egocentric and childish
which doesn't help the case. PulseAudio was also developed by Pottering,
and I don't like it at all as it's just one more broken piece of software
on top of the already overly complex Linux sound stack. I've had problems
with it, and it has provided me zero benefit. Anyway, I think the System D
debate here should continue
Not a problem. There is a "Soapbox" forum for these types of
discussions available, take it there.
Ontopic discussionS are offtopic on the offtopic list.
This is on topic.
At first, you marginalized objectors by saying that we should have the
No, I said no such thing. Re-read the thread.
now you're complaining that objections weren't talked about sooner.
and saying that because we didn't discuss it sooner, we should shut the
Again, I said no such thing. I asked that this soapbox discussion be taken
How about, instead, you stop being a censorious bastard?
Again, I am not censoring anything. And people have been asked by the list
admin not to use derogatory language or name calling on this list.
If you have a specific problem please let us know which version of openSUSE
you are using and what the problem is so that we can try and help you get
your system running.
SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
To contact the owner, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org