Voice of the Masses: Why are systemd debates so toxic?
Almost every major distro has switched to systemd, yet arguments on the web showing no sign of stopping. But increasingly, they’re about politics and flamewars rather than technical issues — and some people are really suffering. Tollef Fog Heen, a Debian developer who maintained systemd in the distro, has stepped down from his role after receiving a torrent of unpleasant abuse for just doing his job.
So for our next podcast, we want to ask you: why is this happening? Does all this mudslinging say more about Linux distribution and kernel development than it does about systemd itself? Is this inevitable given the scope of the changes the systemd brings, because people are very passionate about what Linux should be — or is it just a noisy minority ruining sensible debate for the rest of us?
Let us know in the comments below, and we’ll read out the best in our next podcast recording!
Related Posts
About The Author
Mike Saunders
Mike stores his data by printing out hex dumps and laminating the sheets. He's the author of The Haynes Linux Manual and the creator of MikeOS, an operating system hand-built from assembly language.
Anything that is run in such an open way as the Linux ecosystem is always going to have issues like this.
It comes with the job.
From what I have seen across the web is mostly general users just riding the hate train, and they will never even notice it.
I imagine its because of the level that systemd runs at. If a distro decides on a new Desktop Environment or window manager, people who use a GUI will either swap distro or install a prefered DE. Those who dont use a GUI won’t really care. A debian sysadmin probably couldnt care less whether they ship XFCE or gnome3 by default.
But systemd runs much deeper and as a result brings with it changes to methods and habbits. So it has a much bigger splash zone when it arrives.
From what I have read, it seems to be that the systemd hate squad is much noisier than the pro systemd camp.
Some people are just bad losers and some who may well fit that description saw the Technical Committee’s decision to opt for systemd over the canonical preferred alternative as a personal loss to them and even some kind of personal slight. Their followers (rather than the individuals themselves) have adopted a policy of taking revenge in any way they can…all very silly and very childish…so much so that a 4 year old might be embarrased to behave in such a manner.
All this said it’s extremely sad to see it precipitate the loss of excellent, well known and, rightly, well respected members of the community…I just hope that when the dust settles some of them decide to come back to the fold.
For each of those behaving badly there are, at least, thousands who respect the work being done and those doing it.
Most of the hate I read about systemd is very emotionally worded discontent with having to get into something completely new that clearly breaks with UNIX traditions. And then there’re worries that many administration skills, sometimes learned the hard way, are being made obsolete by systemd. So it quickly gets emotional and ad hominem – especially when a group of people, not really known for their social skills, are making a technical issue an emotional one.
Some systemd suporters act like cultists. No criticism is accepted, any critic is a hater, and systemd must be the default and only choice of every distro.
The way systemd was pushed into debian was disgusting – a bug used to force a decision, a technical committee rushed ballot, and a special vote by a red hat employee to break a tie. Most, if not all systemd supporters were going “tough break, deal with it” to any one who criticised the abuse of the process. And suddenly they are now criticising the intended use of the RCs by Ian Jackson. Even dirty tricks like using the wrong dependency ordering in libpam-systemd to force systemd on anyone who actively opted out of it are being done, to make sure everybody is a convert.
So, all systemd opponents are the bastards, of course.
It’s because one particular group of people really care about having functional systems, while another group really cares about shoving broken software down the first group’s throat.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
― Bertrand Russell
I hope systemd is free of bugs, because it’s pretty much the spine of any distro using it.
However, Heartbleed and Shellshock are writings on the wall.
Wanna be a millionaire? Find a zero day in systemd.
Also, how to convince companies who somehow still have their systems running with any favor of Unix to switch to Linux when systemd breaks POSIX-compatibility? Is porting POSIX-compliant applications to systemd a press on a button? Obviously not! What does that mean? The users will consider to look and stick somewhere else. In the BSD corner for example.
With all of the controversy and anger caused by systemd, I can’t even imagine what will happen when systeme takes over.
I think the vitriol and polaristation of the debate is due to two factors: First, the low level, technical nature of the issue in question, means that few people discussing it *really* understand what they are talking about. And second, that emotionally charged concepts are regularly brandished in the debate charges it with overbearing signifcance. The combination of them makes for a heated debate that is not too narrowly connected to the facts.
I guess there are legitimate concerns, but amidst the current debate it is hard to find helpful discussion of them.
In addition to any philosophical and technical issues, I think that one factor that contributes to the emotionalism is the overweaning arrogance of SystemD’s creators. Person’s do not respond well to arrogance.
Is it really so much more toxic than the hyperventilating surrounding the launch of the Unity desktop or Gnome3? In a way there is more room for misinformation because average users (myself included) can have a more direct understanding of the desktop environment. A lot of the panic surrounding systemd seems to be based on a misapprehension of the “non-transparency of the binary files involved in systemd relative to the plain text SysV init scripts.” This has been turned into a perception that 1. systemd’s source code is not open, which means 2. the binary blobs are the same a proprietary software, which means, 3. Red Hat is trying to take over linux , which means 4. systemd is the same as Windows, which means 5. my entire geeky anti-establishment identity is threatened (and I’m not geeky enough to switch to BSD).
Transparent processes that write to log files that are written in human readable English could represent a very real loss if systemd overtakes on all linux platforms. We’ve seen far too many examples of gaping security holws like heartbleed and shellshock without the ability to conceal in the boot chain.When monty forked mysql and libre forked from open office the community benefited. Let’s see what happens to Debian. Could be a painful yet valuable battle for competitive forks! An argument is not won through domination or alienation of the opposition. Everyone needs to listen and hear the points raised. Transparent logs are definitely the way to progress given the news of last year. Who knows what shel shock heartbleed bugs remain hidden in propriety/binary blobs?
Correct. I’m not saying there’s no advantage to plain text scripts, just that the binaries have often been misunderstood to be the equivalent of closed source in the flame wars.
Being.a curmudgeonly old geek, I didn’t really like the concept of systemd but all the hate and vitriol coming from the anti-systemd camp has really left me with no sympathy for their point of view.
Working as a tester for a new release. While watching my previous rolling release break when systemd bull rushes in. My one complaint is how any distro specific user scripts in /usr/local/bin break function because systemd says so. One must rebuild and also forget what they know to accommodate systemd. Just my personal experience as a distro team member.
It is a head ache or birth ache. However you look at it.
It is just grand when systemd comes in and your main control center buttons quite working on your Window manager. Systemd does not play well with others.
Open source has always been about choice. When something forcibly and invasively removes choice then there will be people who are upset. Open sourcers are not averse to choosing a tool that is slower or difficult to use, because of the freedom it conferred.If they were then Linux, FreeBSD and MikeOS wouldn’t exist, or become as powerful as they have. I dearly look forward to the day when uselessd will be able to replace systemd.
While the systemd promoters ignore the benefits of the diversity of the Linux ecosystem, it is in realty, it’s greatest strength. Systemd seems to have the goal of expanding into ever more areas of the system and forcing through dependencies, a generic or single Linux ecosystem. Gone will be the days when a Debian or Fedora user will be using a truly unique Linux system system. Rather the Linux ecosystem will have been subverted and through dependency requirements, all Linux will be ultimately identical, with only minor cosmetic differences possible.
I agree, the diversity within the Linux world IS one of its strongest points. The lack of a standard/universal API across distributions is one of the reasons Linux is unattractive to malware creators. Allow systemd to become the standard and look forward to much malware in Linux’s future.
Wow! Had not even considered systems as a straightforward attack vector. This would possibly render sysinit systems the Galactica’s of their ecosystem 😉
I think these arguments are symptomatic to the human condition. If you don’t believe me, state a controversial football-related opinion aloud in a pub, or set off a Justin Bieber discussion in a classroom. In both cases, bring your own flame-retardant personal protection equipment.
Having just recently dipped my toe into the systemd world while studying for a certification, IMO the
primary issue is
a) that it wasn’t sold to the overall Linux community (read: installed base) with respect to the problem that systemd is expected/claims to solve
b) it forces administrators to learn a new way of doing things, without a clear benefit,
c) the syntax of the command systemctl is a bit non-terse.
In many ways, it just complicates the average Linux administrators life by having 2 ways to do things, dependent on OS version – which they will be responsible for knowing both ways of doing things for quite a few years.
A link to the Debian Fork!
http://debianfork.org/
here is a funny fork of Systemd
http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/
Because it’s easier to get online and insult people than it is to sit down and code your way to a solution.
Probably because of the rampant low-brow editorializing of the topic by authors of silly articles like these.
Look at that grin. That’s the expression of a man enjoying himself watching his kids duke it out over a fight he started.
It’s brilliant, and I love it.