>> I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a
>> later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross,
>> pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all
>> did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me.
> To get rid of all that use a window manager. I install new releases
> all the time. Nothing visible changes unless I want it to.
I must be missing something, as if you are running a gui,with all the
bouncy castle stuff, then you have a window manager running. As for
updates, rarely do it. Once a system is the way I want it, it's locked
down unless there are good reasons to change it. Constant updates
are a windoze "feature", but that just illustrates how bad it
really is, with so many bugs as shipped. The update idea is like
insurance, selling fear and paranoia.
>> The problem with
>> systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things,
> Actually no. The systemd project has spread out into many areas.
> That's just a sign of how productive the systemd team is.
You are trolling, right ? :-).
I guess you can paint a t**d any colour you like, but it still
> I consider that a separate issue from systemd the replacement from init.
I thought that was the whole point of systemd, an init replacement,
but obviously misjudged it. If true, systemd has visions of empire,
running the whole show instead of the kernel. Thought from the
start that the systemd project was a power grab by Red Hat and all
part of the strategy to exert ever more control over the direction
of Linux as an open source project. In some ways, that's
understandable, since they fund a lot of development, but there's a
fine balance between the idealism and creativity of open source and
the hard edged businesses which companies like Red Hat are.
> And I can't see how it's a problem if one team keeps looking at
> Linux thinking what should we improve next. So, to clarify,
> it's not systemd that has it's fingers in so many things, it's the
> systemd team.
If it ain't broke, dont fix it, though I guess they have to justify
their existence and salaries. With that attitude, no wonder mainstream
Linux looks more and more like a Camel. Change for change's sake
rarely has a good outcome.
>> is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running
>> the show, the kernel, or systemd.
> systemd starts all the services. The kernel still does what it's
> supposed to do. I don't see a problem.
>> Apparently gnome won't run now
>> without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?.
> Gnome is full of utilities that start/stop/customize services.
> How do you suppose they do that without being dependent on
> the .service files?.
That doesn't address the the comment. Deflection ?.
>> Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where
>> services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't
>> much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management
>> utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes
>> running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering
>> efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)...
> One config file for hundreds of possible services?
> I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty
> sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's
> hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't
> tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start,
> do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the service?
Sure, thee are config scripts for the various services, but for a
typical system, rarely any need to even look at them. They can be
controlled, start, stop restart etc, from the command line or from
elsewhere, such as the rc.conf file. On solaris, there are the svcs
and svcadm utilities and on FreeBSD, the service utility. I keep
mentioning Solaris, but have used it for decades and FreeBSD is a nod in
that direction, with ZFS, light weight virtualisation ideas
seemingly borrowed from it.
> Take a look at this:
> h> systemctl status acpid
> acpid.service - ACPI Event Daemon
> Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/acpid.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled)
> Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:21 EDT; 9h ago
> TriggeredBy: acpid.socket
> Docs: man:acpid(8)
> Main PID: 1023 (acpid)
> Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306)
> Memory: 248.0K
> CPU: 6.613s
> CGroup: /system.slice/acpid.service
> /usr/sbin/acpid -f
> Sep 07 12:45:21 home.home systemd: Started ACPI Event Daemon.
FreeBSD has equivalent management tools. For example, ps -dx
gives a tree structured text listing of the processes on the
system and their hierarchy.The service command will
list services and information, as well as start stop,
restart etc. The top command gives a load of info on running
processes, memory usage, priority and current state, but that's
on most unix systems. Perhaps systemd will do that and more,
but why ?.
A quick test here, xfce4 + couple of terminal windows running,
around 75 processes loaded. Now try that with linux and gnome 3.
Do you want a lean and clean street racer,. or a sclerotic mess ?.
Anyway, you have already said you know nothing about it, so
why not broaden your horizons and give it a test install ?.
Less than an hour of your time, or is a text only install and
package config too difficult ?. Plenty of how to tutorials on
the web if you get stuck...