Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote:
> On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote:
>>
>> For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
>>
>> 1. sysvinit (status quo)
>> 2. systemd
>> 3. upstart
>> 4. openrc (experimental)
>> 5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux
>> 6. multiple
>>
>> It should also be noted that no one in the TC voted OpenRC above
>> systemd AND upstart, and that while a couple voted systemd below
>> everything else, it can be argued that it was a tactical vote.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> [1]https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/
>
>
> I would really, really, REALLY like to see a thorough, civil debate
> involving those far more knowledgeable than I on the pros and cons of
> systemd vs OpenRC...

Well, that's the pickle, isn't it? We have the usual stuff:

• OpenRC wasn't able (until very recently) to properly do parallel
execution of daemons. There will be someone who will say "that isn't
important".

• Then there is the inability of OpenRC to properly stop/monitor
daemons (everybody here had to use "/etc/init.d/daemon zap" at some
point, I suppose). Someone will say that there is experimental cgroups
support for OpenRC... "experimental" being the important word, and
there is also the little matter of that not being integrated into the
official package (AFAIU). Also, with that OpenRC loses the "advantage"
of being portable to FreeBSD and/or Hurd.

• And of course, OpenRC is slow as hell compared to systemd (although
there are reports of being really fast using reentrant busybox... I
never used that way, so I don't know). Which again, someone will say
that "that doesn't matter because I never reboot my machine". Great.

But then we have the whole load of features that systemd provides that
no other init system does (OpenRC included). That is an advantage if
you believe that having an standardized plumbing in all "mainstream"
Linux distributions has technical merit and is a good design. If you
believe so (like I and many others do), then systemd is several orders
of magnitude better than OpenRC. If you don't believe so (like many...
although apparently they are less and less as time goes by), then
systemd is the spawn of the devil and it should be killed with fire.

For General Purpose Linux distributions, systemd is a godsend since it
solves and centralizes a lot of stuff that matters to a lot of people.
It's fast and small (if you remove the optional dependencies), so the
embedded guys like it. It offers (for the first time ever) proper
daemon control and management and O(log n) access logs, so the server
guys like it. And if offers proper session monitoring and seat
control, so the desktop guys like it too.

But all those advantages only will be so, if you agree with having a
tightly integrated plumbing interface directly above the kernel and
below PAM and/or X (soon Wayland) sessions. It gets kind of
philosophical, which is why a lot of people taunts the fuzzy term
"UNIX philosophy" so much when they rave against systemd.

> As it seems to me, the Debian OpenRC page says that the cons are not nearly
> as large as the systemd proponents would have us believe.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/openrc

It's because they are cons only if you agree with systemd's view of the world.

I do.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México