Even though I do not fully agree, I think this project has one of the most mature, nuanced, and balanced takes on systemd I have seen yet [0].
[0]: https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq#what-is-the-projects-take...
[0]: https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq#what-is-the-projects-take...
I have spent lots of time with Linux servers. I’m also very pragmatic. systemd has made lots of stuff easier, is highly configurable, maintained and regularly updated, and properly standardised. I acknowledge people who have a need to feel in control or something, but I just want reliable computers that have a single way of doing stuff. They’re cattle, after all.
So I’d really love something with an immutable system image, signed boot, and systemd services top to bottom, along the lines of the thought experiments in Poetterings blog. Is that a thing?
Not an immutable distro though.
Snap might not be a part of systemd, but it is in the same general category of ultra standardized system software.
I'm not sure why there's no real FOSS alternative to it, but there was an attempt at one point. I've always thought it would be cool to make a torrent-based P2P snap store.
No it isn't. Canonical's snap store is closed source but Snap does not depend on it and the process of configuring snapd to fetch and install from your own store is fully documented and needs no proprietary or Canonical tech whatsoever.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/10/snap_without_ubuntu_t...
There are multiple links to Canonical docs, and I don't think it's worth trying to summarise it further.
It does have the "downside" of not just being plug-and-play but rather BYO system.
> CarbonOS is close, and GnomeOS too.
> and here, we build something generic to create images from Fedora/debian/suse/arch… distro packages:
> https://github.com/systemd/particleos
> There‘s a lot going on in the matrix channel of mkosi, I would recommend taking a look.> systemd is written to deliberately (ab)use every single non-portable extension under the sun
I think this should be split into 2 parts. Linux specific kernel features and userspace extensions (GNU vs. POSIX).
Using linux specific kernel features (like cgroups) is good for a linux system. E.g. a common issue with sshd used to be that under high load it would become slow and problematic to log in. Systemd configures the system such that this becomes less likely to happen.
For userspace extensions I would have hoped that systemd would see it as a net positive to build upon a smaller set of tools and features, but the page seems to indicate otherwise. Does anyone know what happened on that front?
OCI container support is one of the things that keeps me so firmly planted in the Linux ecosystem.
Outside the kernel, calling into non-portable extensions should only be done with good reason. One of my favourite things about Chimera is its rejection of most of the GNU specific ecosystem.
Actually, I do not like GNU specific stuff in the kernel either. It should be possible to compile the kernel with multiple compilers.
Ironically, with the addition of Rust in the kernel, most distributions will have to use both LLVM and GCC to create a kernel whereas Chimera can use LLVM for both. Hopefully by the time important Rust code starts to ship in Linux, GCC will have a proper Rust front-end.
I am all for one “most popular” Linux distro that new users can be directed to and that commercial interests can support. Linux ubiquity is being held back by “fragmentation” in that way. That said, I want the ability for myself to choose other ways of doing things ( knowing the convenience I am giving up to do so ). I want focussed projects to be able to innovate. Even if we have a “most popular” option, I do not want a mono-culture.
You can have an all systemd system. It can be the norm. Please do not take away my ability to do something else. At least, do not do it without a good reason.
If Chimera is able to become as popular as Void is now, I would be happy. It would be amazing if it could be the next Arch. I am not sure what q66 wants for the distro but keeping the core distribution pure and having some successful derivatives would be cool ( if they kept to much the same vision ). But I guess I should let the project get out of Alpha first. :)
> Until systemd, there wasn’t anything else that would really do the trick (djbware and stuff derived from djbware does not count, as it’s lacking too much stuff that even various hacked together rc implementations on top of sysvinit added eventually)
There was Canonical's upstart, used in Ubuntu. systemd was created to address upstart's shortcomings
> That’s why one of the goals in Chimera is to implement the actual useful systemd functionality, but independently and in our own way, without the shortcomings.
This is amazing! The greatest value of systemd is that there are many service files written for it (my own ~/.config/systemd directory has a dozen of services) and I think there is value in being compatible with it
> Until systemd, there wasn’t anything else that would really do the trick (djbware and stuff derived from djbware does not count, as it’s lacking too much stuff that even various hacked together rc implementations on top of sysvinit added eventually)
There was Canonical's upstart, used in Ubuntu. systemd was created to address upstart's shortcomings
Personally I never liked systemd because I just didn't see the need for it and I don't like changes forced on me. I'm not a team player and I hate being told to 'just go with the flow'. The whole idea of FOSS for me is to be in control of my computer. Alnd I just don't like the character of Poettering and yes that matters. For a much more extreme example look at ReiserFS. It was totally shitcanned after it turned out its creator was an actual murderer.
Of course Poettering is nothing close to that and his biggest fault is being a little socially abrasive and opinionated. I'm just more sensitive to this than others. But I just really hate optionated software.
This probably makes me a "systemd hater" that the article speaks off. I understand as my concerns are indeed a bit petty. But they're mine anyhow.
In the end I moved to BSD. I'm very happy with it now. They don't have the push to constantly changing stuff around for the sake of things like systemd and net-tools.
I assume you forgot a word here and intended to write "changing stuff around for the sake of changing things"?
I just want to set the record straight: systemd solves the startup-dependency problem. Yes the old default init scripts worked fine for your system (that probably had very few services installed other than vanilla defaults), but it was insufficient for handling the exploding cascade of dependencies when service1 depends on the network, service2 depends on the graphical subsystem, service3 (the wifi daemon) can restart the network, etc. People tried in vain, hacked nasty rc.init scripts for years, until Poettering took matters into his own hands.
I will stop there because I dont know the whole history behind it, but I just take issue with the attitude that systemd in particular is just kids messing around with the latest-new-thing. Some of that does exist in the Linux sphere, even worse, with some maintainers putting inappropriate images and political messages in their apps[1]. But systemd - as with wayland - solves a problem that had been brewing a long time.I suppose you could almost think of it as a fix for developers instead of end users? I'm not compelling you to use it, just disputing your final point.
[1]. https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/18izmt4/clarifyin...
PS: I don't like Wayland either for that matter :) At all. My ideal would be an X12 with the X-Windows foundations but modified for modern realities.
And that's perfectly fine. My problem with systemd is that it didn't stop there; it became this giant monolithic thing that Linux hangs off the edge of. That's Poettering's sin.
Poettering might have opinions on what Linux should be that don’t overlap with yours, but systemd solves actual problems and works better than any init script shenanigans that came before. If you don’t agree with this premise, I call your proficiency with Linux into question (don’t take this in spite, please, it’s in no way meant personally).
For myself, I am more bothered by RMS. Although I know Chimera has shunned GNU for technical reasons, I would personally prefer a world where all GNU software has been replaced by alternatives. In my view, we would be better off to be free of RMS and the politics he has created around around “GNU / Linux”. The GPL itself is an important option in Open Source and, while it is not my favourite, I wish it and the projects that adopt it much success. However, the GNU Project itself is becoming an impediment ( my views only of course ). Luckily, the GNU project represents quite a small list of software projects despite the way people talk about it. Replacing GCC, Glibc, and Coreutils would be enough. Of these, the most damaging and the hardest to replace is probably Glibc.
Anyway, my intent is not to trigger people with such opinions in this thread. I do not want them to reflect badly on Chimera. My only reason for chiming in is to illustrate that Poettering is not unique in collecting detractors.
Finally, systemd did solve real problems at the time. There are other solutions now though so let’s not render them inoperable. Also, not everything systemd wants to be now is better than the alternatives or even what came before. Not liking systemd does not mean wanting to go back to init scripts.
Btw, the system I use most daily uses systemd. I also use it in a project at work although, there, we have a strange bug “rarely” at shutdown that systemd is implicated in and I wish it ( and is ecosystem ) were easier to understand. So again, I find the Chimera approach attractive.
the GNU codebases may have their issues (but not always; there are some very high quality ones), but that's still not a reason for personal attacks, and frequently the maintainers are just trying to do their best and don't deserve any of that shit
ideally I'd like to see an ecosystem where all the projects are represented, where the projects collaborate, adapt ideas from each other, and strive for portability and interoperability so that compatibility problems do not exist and so that users have the greatest freedom in terms of both hardware and software; but I guess that may be too much to ask
I do not really mean to criticize anybody myself. My venting is more about GNU advocates criticizing others, campaigning against collaboration, or trying to lay claim to vast swaths of software they did not write. Although I am very pro-Open Source, it also bothers me when too much abuse is heaped on commercial vendors that do contribute lots of code ( even code I don’t love ). At least, I prefer the complaining stayed technical.
Thank you again for your contributions. I hope I continue to enjoy your choices. Good luck either way.
Nor commercial involvement (e.g. RedHat/IBM or Ubuntu) for that matter. This is why I'm better off with BSD anyway because there's so much less commercial involvement.
And Linus yes he can be abrasive but usually I would agree with him more.
> I call your proficiency with Linux into question (don’t take this in spite, please, it’s in no way meant personally).
Well I'm certainly not very good with Linux anymore since I've used it less and less recently, gravitating more towards the BSDs. So that's not a bad point, I know how to start and stop systemd services and a bit on how to get logging back etc. But the point is, I never really wanted to learn something new. I've used FreeBSD since version 6 and it's hardly changed at all. And it works totally fine for me. But "being good with Linux" is not a goal for me anyway. I don't currently need it for my career anyway.
In the mean time I've been on Macs, but I really really abhor the way that Apple is constantly changing things around on me too (they are far worse at this than Linux) and they are consumerising the OS rapidly. So when I went back to FOSS I decided to go for BSD for this reason.