←back to thread

Run0, a systemd based alternative to sudo, announced

(mastodon.social)
466 points CoolCold | 3 comments | 29 Apr 24 23:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.75s | source
Show context
kbar13 ◴[30 Apr 24 07:38 UTC] No.40208219[source]▶
systemd has been a net positive for the linux ecosystem. remember when you had to write bash scripts to start, stop, restart services and handle any other signals you want to send it? nowadays it's a unit file (basically just an ini file) away with relatively straightforward API. and you can actually declare startup dependencies and other useful relationships past just "prepend a number signifying when it should run globally to the front of the filename". it's provided an extensible platform with which higher level orchestration frameworks like ansible / ignition can easily templatize services or other system configuration.

since the beginning of systemd people have moaned about how complex it is and how we're reinventing the wheel. yet time and time again the people actually working on the project show that the solution they've come up with is the result of the problem they're facing on a daily basis. it's quite annoying that the armchair linux experts complain about how "lol systemd is so stupid for reinventing the wheel, give me my shell scripts back", maybe think about whether or not you have a legitimate issue not being addressed by the solution proposed or if you are just getting rage baited by a headline.

replies(17): >>40208249 #>>40208286 #>>40208374 #>>40208481 #>>40209110 #>>40209185 #>>40212620 #>>40212965 #>>40214704 #>>40214800 #>>40214923 #>>40215163 #>>40215552 #>>40215793 #>>40216445 #>>40217144 #>>40217617 #
hxelk1 ◴[30 Apr 24 08:01 UTC] No.40208374[source]▶
> you can actually declare startup dependencies and other useful relationships

In theory, yes. In practice, I had a lot of trouble ordering things correctly in non-trivial cases.

> it's quite annoying that the armchair linux experts complain about how "lol systemd is so stupid for reinventing the wheel, give me my shell scripts back"

I can only speak for myself, but I don't want the abysmal sysvinit scripts back. I just want a simple process supervision suite which is true to the UNIX way of doing things. The sysvinit/systemd dichotomy is false.

Runit and s6 are both very real alternatives to systemd. They lack a ton of features, but they are a way to reliably run services. They do use shell scripts, but not for the reasons sysvinit did. They are extremely simple and have a very small attack surface as a result. Runit itself is a spiritual descendant of daemontools which predate systemd by great many years.

The problem with systemd is that it's a mediocre solution to many problems. UNIX deserved better.

[Edit: whitespace]

replies(3): >>40208546 #>>40210966 #>>40234782 #
1. jauntywundrkind ◴[30 Apr 24 13:54 UTC] No.40210966[source]▶
The other pieces are also pretty excellent. Ifup gave me no joy & was very limited. Systemd-networkd is a wonderful option with vast & great capabilities, that meshes well with the init process & it's style. Systemd-timesyncd is fine, I dunno, works for me. Systemd-journald is probably the weakest of the batch but mostly because it's not very ambitious; I loath that there's no way to really deal with super-active programs hogging all the logspace, short of configuring a second journald instance for that program, which ain't no joy to setup. Systemd-home is a cool set of features for portability. Systemd-nspawn is a bit ahead of its time & looks a little weird now but was a very novel & powerful thing to have built in to most systems. Systemd-resolved is a pretty good local DNS that handles mdns and much weirder cases easily. Systemd-boot is a really nice easy to work with uefi boot loaders that's worlds easier to deal with than uboot or gasp grub.

All of these are taken em or leave em. But they're good expectations to have. I love the bazaar model, but Linux used to have so few common expectations, used to manage various bits so poorly. And now there's a much better base of capabilities, which have universal patterns of management that tend to apply to them (how etc files are laid how, being dbus and maybe varlink accessible). Linux hadn't been growing; when you came to a random systems you expected enormously little and typically got it, and what extras were available were scattered/random and often not particularly high quality or capable software. Systems has extended a much bigger base of competency & capability. That we can plug in a USB drive and systemd-home can create an isolated dynamic user out of that & let that user securely run their environment there is a neat as heck expectation. That our network manager supports setting up such a wide range of bridges and tunnels and taps and tuns is fantastic, is excellent. I don't have words for people turning their noses up at this better world; this is so much more competent & capable a world than where we were, gives us so much we all can now take for granted, and it's been done smartly, more mono-repo than monolithic, such that you can do alternatives. But many of these pieces are utterly without peer. And the consistency of operation you get, the predictability of use, from being under the same umbrella, is an ergonomic wonder that is unmatched.

replies(1): >>40212615 #
2. ghostpepper ◴[30 Apr 24 16:08 UTC] No.40212615[source]▶
Is there a good overview of these pieces and what they're responsible for and how they fit together?

I had a quick skim of the docs on systemd.io and there are quite a few documents but they don't seem particularly organized and I couldn't see a good architecture overview.

replies(1): >>40214918 #
3. mattpallissard ◴[30 Apr 24 19:06 UTC] No.40214918[source]▶
I hate to be this guy but the man pages have it all

  man -k systemd
There's some terminology to learn, but overall it's pretty approachable.

Edit; and as far as architecture goes they are all _separate_ programs. It's not a single large "systemd"