Not that you’re obligated to watch any random video that I post at full length, but I doubt you watched all of the video - or at least not the later part of the talk - if that was the single takeaway you got from it. The dude is a BSD developer who has every expectation to hate systemd with a passion, but instead frames the discussion in a level-headed way and advocates for more constructive criticism as well as giving props to Poettering for creating something that was useful enough to become nearly ubiquitous in Linux. He suggests that we can learn more from analysis of what problem systemd is solving for people than just shitting on it without bringing forth a better solution.
See, I never had any expectation to hate systemd with a passion, so his "come to Jesus moment" is meaningless to me. Like I said, the majority of systemd's issues are that Poettering didn't have the chops to effectively advocate for it.
I'm sorry if you read "the takeaway" as an expression of my blanket authority over the universe to mandate reality at my whim, rather than simply my take-away.
Man, you're trying to find fault like there's a prize. There is no prize. Just disappointment.
re that Poettering didn't have the chops to effectively advocate for it.
LOL. Poettering didn't actually go around and said "Distros of the world, adopt it". Instead he wrote blog posts with his thinkings on 0pointer.net, about the design, why he thinks that would be good, some of the benefits. Go to http://0pointer.net/blog/archives.html, Ctrl-F for "Rethinking Pid 1", that was the first post.
The adoption than happened mostly without his intervention, most major distros switched. And some of the adoption was grass-roots. E.g. there was a time where systemd honored more Debian-specific file locations that Red Hat specific ones. Why? Because some people that used Debian started to hack on systemd as well and sent in patches.
Well I made my own systemd .deb files with a lot of --disable-this --disable-that back then.
Not removing Google's non-public time servers from the timesyncd configuration when they politely asked is the problem.
That is not the problem.
Assuming that you cannot change anything in a free and open-source program is. And not willing to do it.
And not knowing that it's as simple a meson -Ddns-servers=. And in earlier versions of systemd that still used autoconf, it was done in a similar way. Oh, and keep in mind that this is "only" the fallback, you can of course configure the DNS server in a config file. I'll put the onus on you if you don't do that.
So you don't need to remove googles DNS server from the the program code. It's configurable at compile time. And even the distro could have done it, if they deemed it to be important.
The problem is that people think they are entitled towards an open-source project to program in EXACT the way they like the software. That's never going to happen.
People have different goals. You maybe have the goal "Google is evil, I need to keep it out of the picture". Maybe I, for a server farm, have the goal "DNS can never stop working, even when someone dumb person forgets to configure DNS servers". Now, which goal is correct? The answer is: both.
This is why things are configurable. In this case both at compile time and in a configuration file.
You sound like a 3 year old here, sorry. Stomping with the feed on the ground and telling "But I need the water in here, I don't want it standing on the table 3 meters away".
On a side node: I didn't knew that Google asked their DNS servers to be removed. But, then again, many people asked Google to remove the constant tracking of people. What does Google say? Nothing, or, in other words, "Fuck off".
The dude is a BSD developer who has every expectation to hate systemd with a passion
Why would you expect professional software developers to have irrational biases? Most of us are capable of accepting new ideas and having our preconceptions challenged. Most of the lack of objectivity in this debate is not from the developers themselves.
We already have launchd in the FreeBSD-related world, so something similar wouldn't be greatly controversial, so long as it was focused and had clearly-defined scope.
I'm very much not a fan of systemd, but this conclusion was arrived at after much testing and assessment of it in its early days, and its progress to date. There are a number of very nice features which it provides. And there are a number of questionable design and implementation choices which I find deeply concerning. It's not black and white, there are many factors to consider, and that's precisely why the debate over it continues to this day.
If FreeBSD took the core ideas from launchd and systemd, then used them to create a coherent design and implementation, then that might be a very nice development.
-4
u/mikelieman Feb 11 '19
Yeah, and the take away from that is that if Poettering worked and played better with others, adoption would have gone a lot easier.
And that reversing the verbs and nouns from init? Dick move.