В днешно време стана така че ако не харесваш Systemd -духаш супата... или преминаваш на добрия стар Slackware или няколкото малки останали GNU/Linux дистрибуции.
И къде е избора???
Изборът е в текста над въпроса. Ползваш си Slackware, като баш майсторите. Чичо ти Патрик все още е жив и кове код здраво в мазето си. Да ти дам идея за Gentoo и ще блеснеш с нея, като 40 ватова LED лампа. С Linux Mint и Manjaro, имидж на гоУем линуксар не се гради.
Не, че разбирам, но все пак да питам, коя система ползваха за инициализация преди да се появи systemd повечето дистрибуции, че сега са се минимизирали разликите между тях ? Като изключим upstart при Ubuntu на която в един момент беше преминала и Open SUSE, всички масово ползвани дистрибуции бяха на sysvinit. Разнообразието беше, колкото е и сега. По друга линия има негодуване, но не си го дочел.
Така е,с Linux Mint и Manjaro, имидж на гоУем линуксар не се гради -точно това имах впредвид! За RedHat, ако беше прочел статията -важни са големите риби -разбирай -SUSE,Canonical, Debian водещи в сървърния сегмент и с голямо комюнити, на RedHat въобще не им дреме за дистрибуции за ентусиасти -с риск да обидя някого като Слак,джентоо,Арч.
Sysvinit... Upstart... Извинявай, направихте ли си труда да прочетете статиите, или просто така отгоре... отгоре...
Както и човека който е написал статиите каза... проблема не е Systemd -това е една много добра система за инициализация, проблема идва когато същата тази система на инициализация започва да се обвързва с други независещи по никакъв повод важни проекти с отворен код като Gnome и др. разбира се под зоркото дережиране от страна на RedHat, чрез внедряване на "свои" хора в тези проекти с идеята тези проекти да зависят от Systemd.
Въпрос с повишена трудност -ЗАЩО и ОТКЪДЕ накъде графична среда като Gnome има нещо общо и ще зависи от една система на инициализация?
На всеки му е ясно че Debian/Ubuntu накъде поемат че цялата редица... от техни базирани дистрибуции ще поеме по техния път... поради липса на технически ресурс да предприемат каквото и да е рязко.
Като спечелиш големите РИБИ, всички останали щът нещът ще поемат по техния път.
И понеже не всеки е прочел подробно статиите да добавя цитат:
"Red Hat needs the other major Linux distributions to cooperate
If Red Hat was ever going to succeed in their long term plans for developing the "Internet's Next Generation OS" they knew they needed to somehow influence the other major Linux distributions. The reason for this is that if a major Linux distribution like Debian was going to reject systemd, Red Hat wouldn't be able to proceed with their plans because to many third party projects simply wouldn't care about how Red Hat would like things to work. This is important because most Open Source projects develop software with POSIX compatibility in mind. As such they try to make sure that their project compiles and works on several Unix-like operating systems. This is something that isn't in the interests of Red Hat because POSIX complicates things a lot for embedded devices. As long as you have to consider other operating systems such as Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc., Linux is "held back" when compared to functionality in Microsoft Windows. Functionality such as easy mounting and unmounting, simple privilege escalation, and much more.
The tactics deployed by Red Hat was to try to get as many "important" third party projects to cooperate very tightly with systemd, or even depend upon systemd. This way other Linux distributions are more easily persuaded into adopting systemd because of the easy integration of these third party projects. The systemd developers addressed several third party projects and tried to convince them to make their projects either depend upon systemd, such as the attempts made by Lennart Poettering on the Gnome mailing list, and the attempt made by Red Hat developer "keszybz" on the tmux project. Most of these attempts were originally "disguised" as technical issues, however when you read the long email correspondence on the Gnome mailing list and elsewhere, the real intent becomes quite clear.
Other "tactics" deployed by Red Hat was hiring developers from GNOME and other Linux distributions, such as Debian, and then have these people promote systemd internally.
Eventually the GNOME project became tightly integrated into systemd and Red Hat and GNOME are now working towards their goals related to the "new Linux desktop".
Consequences
One of the results of all of the above has been a huge uproar in the Open Source Linux community in which Debian Developer Joey Hess, Debian Technical Committee members Russ Allbery and Ian Jackson, and systemd package-maintainer Tollef Fog Heen resigned from their positions. All four justified their decision on the public Debian mailing list and in personal blogs with their exposure to extraordinary stress-levels related to ongoing disputes on systemd integration within the Debian and open-source community that rendered regular maintenance virtually impossible.
In December 2014 a group calling themselves the "Veteran Unix Admins" announced a fork of Debian called Devuan that intends to provide a Debian variant without systemd. Devuan 1.0.0 was released on May 26, 2017.
The main problem with systemd is that its continued development is motivated by a company's economic interests and not the Open Source Linux community interests. As time goes by more and more "issues" will most likely pop-up and the other major Linux distributions will possibly regret the integration and adoption of systemd into their projects. Not because of systemd as an init system in itself, systemd init is pretty good and Lennart Poettering and Co. has contributed and implemented some great features. What I mean by "issues" is not the software bugs, but the way user concerns, privacy concerns, and other important security issues are dealt with by Lennart Poettering and Co.
Hard coded DNS servers in systemd-resolved is another great issue with privacy.
Lennart Poettering explained that the hard coded values should be there in case of catastrophic failure of configuration files, and a lack of DHCP on the network (the DNS fallback is changeable but requires a recompile). However, that's the "embedded developer" speaking. If a bug is found in the application that makes these DNS servers run even though you have disabled them, or if a race issue bug is found, you could be facing a serious privacy issue. Futher more running with Cloudflare, Quad9, and Google DNS servers hard coded into the systemd code is deeply problematic as these companies are not only know for violating peoples privacy, but also because NSA has infiltrated Googles data centers, something revealed by the Snowden documents. Such settings should never be opt-out (where you have to remember to remove them), they should be opt-in, and definitely not the default options.
The way these issues are dealt with shows a disregard for user privacy and for the interests of the Open Source Linux community.
Currently Red Hat still treads "carefully", but once they get much closer to their main objectives, they will most likely become more "aggressive" in their management style of systemd and the world of Linux will probably change dramatically as a result - then it will be difficult and very time consuming to "fix" things.
Other perspectives
From a technical perspective I don't believe there is anything wrong with systemd as an init system. However, you can no longer just get the systemd init system as more and more components are getting tightly integrated into systemd, such as udev (systemd-udev). This is happening because the systemd project is paving the way for Red Hat's plans for Linux as a desktop distribution. As a result the init freedom in GNU/Linux has been compromised, which is a real problem as several other init solutions provides solid replacements. OpenRC already existed before systemd and it is a great init system fully capable of starting services in parallel too.
systemd was originally launched as an init system, but Lennart Poettering no longer describes systemd as an init system, he now describes systemd as a "never finished, never complete, but tracking progress of technology" project. Lennart Poettering has also described systemd as unifying "pointless differences between distributions".
The differences between GNU/Linux distributions has never been pointless, they have been about freedom. The freedom to put together an operating system from multiple different components in a way you see fit. Sure, from a system administration point of view, having only one way to deal with multiple GNU/Linux distributions makes the work more easy, but there is more to a GNU/Linux distribution than just system administration.
Because systemd has managed to get integrated so tightly into some of the biggest GNU/Linux distributions, they have also managed to make many system components depend upon systemd features. For those components that either didn't cooperate or just didn't fit into the bigger systemd picture, they created a "systemd-*" replacement part. And the list keeps growing.
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd has become huge and it contains more than a million lines of code.
Какво по ясно от това?
Покажи Публикации - bgpepi
