Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

X.Org Server 1.16 Brings XWayland, GLAMOR, Systemd Integration

Unknown Lamer posted about two weeks ago | from the x11-will-outlast-us-all dept.

X 224

An anonymous reader writes The much anticipated Xorg Server 1.16 release is now available. The X.Org "Marionberry Pie" release features XWayland integration, GLAMOR support, systemd support, and many other features. XWayland support allows for legacy X11 support in Wayland environments via GL acceleration, GLAMOR provides generic 2D acceleration, non-PCI GPU device improvements, and countless other changes. The systemd integration finally allows the X server to run without root privileges, something in the works for a very long time. The non-PCI device improvements mean System-on-a-Chip graphics will work more smoothly, auto-enumerating just like PCI graphics devices do. As covered previously, GLAMOR (the pure OpenGL acceleration backend) has seen quite a bit of improvement, and now works with Xephyr and XWayland.

cancel ×

224 comments

Soon... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475189)

there will be no usable X, at least not from X.org, outside of poetterix.

Re:Soon... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475217)

I'm sure all 10 desktop BSD users will figure something out.

Re:Soon... (5, Funny)

rujasu (3450319) | about two weeks ago | (#47475273)

Why are you writing numbers in binary?

Re:Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475557)

Why are you writing numbers in binary?

Come on, that was pretty damn funny.

Re:Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475579)

Generosity.

Re:Soon... (-1, Troll)

ogdenk (712300) | about two weeks ago | (#47475543)

Funny until you consider the amount of OSX users running XQuartz. Most desktop BSD users migrated to Macs. All the FOSS goodies you can shake a stick at *AND* a native commercial desktop productivity/graphics/audio software base that isn't a joke. Not having to jump through hoops to exchange data with the rest of the world is nice.

Re:Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475629)

Funny until you consider the amount of OSX users running XQuartz.

Next to none? So few people use X11 on OS X that it has only been an optional install since 2005.

Re:Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475649)

And to add, Mountain Lion even uninstalled it if you had X11 installed. That must have been because of the huge user base, right?

Re:Soon... (3, Interesting)

ogdenk (712300) | about two weeks ago | (#47475817)

ML removed the old stale obsolete Apple-branded X11.app. It did not uninstall XQuartz. And XQuartz is quite actively maintained. Does the average kid running GarageBand need it? No.

It's been an optional install from the beginning because most folks don't need X11 apps. Native mac ports of apps are much nicer most of the time and pretty easy to find. Running legacy X11 apps is not something most people need. But if the need arises, you can, and it works REALLY well. LOTS of people run command-line FOSS tools under OSX though.

Apple solved the crappy UNIX desktop environment problem. They just didn't give away the source. I don't care if software is FOSS or not however. If it's good, I'll use it. If the price is too high, there's plenty of ways around that issue that any 14-yr-old kid with a web browser can find.

Re:Soon... (2)

ogdenk (712300) | about two weeks ago | (#47475839)

Oh, and in fact, if you try to run an X11 app without XQuartz installed on 10.9, it will ask you if you want some help installing XQuartz and will direct you to a site to download it.

Re:Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475943)

It's been an optional install from the beginning because most folks don't need X11 apps.

So as I said, the user base is next to no one.

Re:Soon... (1)

ogdenk (712300) | about two weeks ago | (#47476045)

It's enough that it sees active development and a lot of use where old RISC-based UNIX boxes were once king.

In terms of installed base, there's FAR more headless Linux servers than desktops, so X11 users in general are "next to no one" right?

Generally it gets used when some "gotta-have-it" FOSS app lacks a proper mac port. X11 apps are less desirable because generally they suck compared to proper mac applications. And it's not XQuartz that's the problem, it's X in general. X11 on the mac is a last resort even if it works well because Apple's windowing system is THAT MUCH BETTER.

Re:Soon... (2)

Rob Y. (110975) | about two weeks ago | (#47476729)

WINE on the Mac uses XQuartz too. It works well, except when it doesn't. I've had it freeze up my display completely - happens when I exit my WIN32 app and then restart it. If I wait a while before restarting, it's okay. But if I restart it too soon, X launches and the screen goes all white. That's when you find out that the Mac's equivalent of Windows task manager is pretty crappy. It won't come up either, so you need to reboot...

Re:Soon... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about two weeks ago | (#47475717)

And how many users is that?

Re:Soon... (1)

ogdenk (712300) | about two weeks ago | (#47475975)

And how many desktop Linux users do you know outside of the IT department besides a simple web-browsing box some guy set up for his Grandma?

Because pre-installed Linux desktops just fly off the shelves. Please. The only widely successful end-user Linux environment for daily use has been Android.

Both Linux and FreeBSD desktop users are a minority that few care about. Though if you count the Sony PS4 as desktop FreeBSD usage then it will soon trump Linux. Market share is a lame argument, FreeBSD is a great OS that is better documented than Linux and has several advantages as well as Linux binary compatibility with native performance.

Re:Soon... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about two weeks ago | (#47476205)

What does any of that have to do with my post? I was simply asking you how many users there were of XQuartz since you were implying it was some large number.

Re:Soon... (1)

ogdenk (712300) | about two weeks ago | (#47476323)

Maybe I'm tired.... thought you trying to bash XQuartz for some reason.

I don't think anyone has compiled real statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if the number exceeds the number of FreeBSD desktop users by a large margin. It's certainly not an insignificant number but probably a fairly small percentage of OSX users. Most Mac users I know have Fink or Macports installed along with XQuartz but my numbers are likely skewed because I'm an IT monkey. Most of the "average" mac users I know only ended up using it to play with older versions of GIMP or OpenOffice.

Re:Soon... (3, Funny)

kuzb (724081) | about two weeks ago | (#47475763)

It's actually at least 15. They always walk single file in order to hide their numbers.

Re:Soon... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475767)

As opposed to the 10 desktop linux users? Oh that's right, there is no such thing. There is no standard working-out-of-the-box desktop linux.

The problem, is, in short, X11, X.org, Wayland, Mir and anything else that comes out of the open source movement in terms of desktop UI/UX will never be of any use because nobody wants to agree on anything. BSD/Linux X11 has breakneck feature obsolescence because nobody wants to actually standardize. I can run a 20 year old Windows app on Windows 8.1, but I can't run a 8 month old Linux application because it may depend on some obscure UI/UX feature that someone didn't like and quit maintaining.

Re:Soon... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476065)

I have an X11R5 app here that still works, no sweat.

Re:Soon... (2)

armanox (826486) | about two weeks ago | (#47476337)

BSD/Linux X11 has breakneck feature obsolescence because nobody wants to actually standardize. I can run a 20 year old Windows app on Windows 8.1, but I can't run a 8 month old Linux application because it may depend on some obscure UI/UX feature that someone didn't like and quit maintaining.

Actually, I thought the whole impetus behind moving to Wayland was being able to delete legacy X11 features. Anything that uses X standards seems to compile and run on any X11 platform (XSun, Xorg, XSgi, XQuartz) without too much hassle (take GTK 2.x, for example. Or Qt4).

Re:Soon... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about two weeks ago | (#47476367)

There is no standard working-out-of-the-box desktop linux.

/quote>

There is no standard working-out-of-the-box desktop Windows.

To use pre installed windows. ...

Boot the machine. Activate it. Spend 4 hours updating and rebooting while uninstalling the shitloads of crapware and Norton that come pre installed just so I can finally install the stuff I need from 8 different sites.

Or

I can put in a burned DVD 2 min later I am in a live Linux environment. Install Linux ... 20 min later it is installed, updated and has the stuff I want on it.

Linux actually goes from zero to a workable system really quickly.

So... (1)

Agares (1890982) | about two weeks ago | (#47475249)

Why are there going to be all of these changes? I am genuinely curious since I have only heard a little about this in the past.

Re:So... (1)

XanC (644172) | about two weeks ago | (#47475263)

Well, you see:

The systemd integration finally allows the X server to run without root privileges, something in the works for a very long time. The non-PCI device improvements mean System-on-a-Chip graphics will work more smoothly, auto-enumerating just like PCI graphics devices do. As covered previously, GLAMOR (the pure OpenGL acceleration backend) has seen quite a bit of improvement, and now works with Xephyr and XWayland.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475277)

Have the attention span of a gnat?

Systemd? Not on my system... (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47475265)

I really hope it is not a requirement and will never be on for X.org. Otherwise, I will end up having to make my Linux-servers X-less and probably use Windows as terminal. After all, with systemd, windows-like levels of intransparency, insecurity, complexity and developer arrogance have already been reached. One system with that is quite enough, I do not need to deal with that crap on Linux as well.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475351)

...not on mine either.

Not sure yet if systemd is a virus or malware infection.
Regardless, do they have to pedal this crapware so ubiquitously?

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476123)

...not on mine either.

Not sure yet if systemd is a virus or malware infection.
Regardless, do they have to pedal this crapware so ubiquitously?

Damn right! Keep those bicycles off my system (and my lawn!)

(I think you meant "peddle") ;P

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about two weeks ago | (#47475353)

Systemd vs init: It's the new emacs vs vi debate for the 21st century. :P

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475383)

Yeah, emacs vs vi, or a user of one of those pesky OS that that don't have it...

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (2)

Warbothong (905464) | about two weeks ago | (#47475463)

I use systemd on GobiLinux to launch Gnome3 in Wayland so I can tab-indent, via my Dvorak keyboard, the UTF-16-encoded, dynamically-typed code of my GPLed program in Emacs. While playing Oggs in Amarok2 through PulseAudio on OSS4. /nerd-troll

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476053)

What kind of self-respecting nerd would encode his source in UTF-16?

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475501)

Systemd vs init: It's the new emacs vs vi debate for the 21st century. :P

Vote third party! [nano-editor.org]

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about two weeks ago | (#47475505)

Systemd vs init: It's a Swiss Army knife vs a chef's knife. A shiny abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed, vs a simple tool that does one thing very very well.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about two weeks ago | (#47475645)

Well there are advantages to systemd whether you personally like it or not. Like automatic dependency handling, parallel service starts, monitoring built-in. And there are disadvantages too.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about two weeks ago | (#47475711)

Systemd definitely solves a problem that exists. Unfortunately, it solves it in the same way that a nuclear warhead solves the problem of rat infestation.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about two weeks ago | (#47476141)

Systemd definitely solves a problem that exists. Unfortunately, it solves it in the same way that a nuclear warhead solves the problem of rat infestation.

To be fair, systemd have never irradiated anyone, like Godzilla - yet.
(Though, we should all fear the day it does...)

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about two weeks ago | (#47475795)

The juxtaposition of your post and sig "Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it." has me ROFLing. Systemd is, indeed, just like the spam skit - it's in EVERYTHING, and everybody gets stuck with it, even though nobody wants it. In the same way that spam isn't really FOOD, it's just on your plate, systemd isn't UNIX, it's just on your system.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (2)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47476031)

For the reasons you describe, it is not on my system. Currently, long-term support for Debian without it looks like a temporary solution, but eventually, I think, I will have to go to Gentoo. (Unless by that time a few more distros have woken up. There may be some reason Debian now has long-term support for the last version that does not make systemd mandatory...) I need security and reliability, not "faster boot times".

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47475991)

The main beef I have with it is the "embrace-and-extend" cancer-like model that is used to push it on people by. If it were just a cultured, friendly alternative, but anybody not wanting to use it could easily be without it, I would have no problem with it at all. Instead it is a clear, uncultivated power-grab in the Linux-sphere and that is not good at all.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about two weeks ago | (#47476087)

I would have to disagree with the analogy of embrace and extend as systemd is open source whereas MS products were not. And you can use alternatives but it may be more work to maintain them.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476077)

daemontools supported all of that about ... ten years ago now?

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about two weeks ago | (#47476115)

And it hasn't been maintained in 12 years or so.

So... (4, Insightful)

warrax_666 (144623) | about two weeks ago | (#47475651)

So what particular one thing does SysV init do well in your opinion? I honestly can't think of a single thing. It's crappy at managing services, it's crappy at running shell scripts (as witness by the non-standardness of init.d scripts), it's shit at managing running services with interdependencies (inittab), it's shit at dynamically reconfiguring systems (e.g. network reconfiguration for Wifi.), etc. etc.

There's a reason alternatives were created, y'know.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

ustolemyname (1301665) | about two weeks ago | (#47475721)

Totally agree. When I read his analogy it initially made sense to me, but only because I implicitly switched the order of Systemd and SysV init because that makes sense. "abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed" perfectly describes the hell that was init scripts.

Re:So... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47476079)

Can the propaganda. What you claim is so obviously wrong, it is not funny anymore.

Re:So... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about two weeks ago | (#47476027)

Well init in my opinion is as the poster stated init is an excellent chef's knife. The problem is in the modern age, sometimes you need a screwdriver and sometimes you need scissors. Systemd can do all those things but it's not great at doing so. It's enough to get by.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

allquixotic (1659805) | about two weeks ago | (#47476029)

I don't think SysVinit is particularly good at anything, especially considering it's SysV's complete lack of functionality that caused the emergence of 9 different ways to do network config (Debian way, RHEL way, Gentoo way, and many others); 9 different ways to do logging (syslog, rsyslog, syslog-ng, etc.); and so on with starting daemons, yada yada.

That said, I'm really somewhat disappointed that, as powerful of a unifying force within the Linux distro world Poettering's contributions have been, they completely neglect non-Linux FOSS operating systems. I've been a RHEL/Debian hand for years and years, but recently I've started falling in love with SmartOS, which is based on Illumos/OpenIndiana/OpenSolaris. It actually has a REALLY good built-in init system called SMF, which, like all init systems, sucks at some things but is really really nifty at others. One thing I can say for certain about SMF is it kicks SysVinit's ass from one side of the world to the other. It's always disappointing when a project team for something other than systemd, which previously compiled fine on SmartOS, decides to add a hard dependency on Systemd. It basically guarantees that your project will be forked for all the people out there who aren't using Systemd.

Looks like Xorg doesn't strictly require systemd, which is the CORRECT way to integrate Systemd into a project: make it an OPTIONAL dependency. I have absolutely no qualms with a project ADDING support for Systemd while maintaining support for non-Systemd systems, such as non-Linux OSes. I have a problem when something I need on SmartOS is basically hard-locked to the Linux kernel by indirection to hard-depending on Systemd.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about two weeks ago | (#47476041)

It's crappy at managing services,

init doesn't manage services. Services are either managed by inetd or by themselves. init only has to start the services.

it's crappy at running shell scripts (as witness by the non-standardness of init.d scripts),

That's proof of how good it is at running shell scripts. It just runs the script.

it's shit at managing running services with interdependencies (inittab)

Init doesn't need to be good at that. You can use a tool to create your runlevels which can figure it out. The only problem I see is the lack of parallelism. I suspect that this could have been fixed without replacing init.

it's shit at dynamically reconfiguring systems (e.g. network reconfiguration for Wifi.),

Why in the love of all that is Unix would you expect init to handle network configuration? Its job is to start and stop things, not to reconfigure your NIC. This mindset is exactly how we got systemd when we didn't really need it. We should have been able to use selinux to run X without root.

Re:So... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47476057)

Well, there are people with different opinions about that. SysV init works very well for me and in particular lets me customize everything, which I routinely do. Now, is some people want systemd, I am completely fine with that. What I am decidedly not fine with is having systemd forced on me.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476833)

Why do you think its forced on you? If you don't like it, don't use it, or write a replacement yourself. Stop pretending like its everyone elses job to write software you aprove of.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476935)

I see school is out for the summer.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476135)

Why is it that "sysv" keeps on being trotted out as our only hope against poetterbloat?

Re: So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476699)

It happens to all systems. Things are changing, and the people who learned Linux early are now seeing their knowledge being phased out. Same thing happens with any OS - compare windows 3.1 to windows 8. Linux needs to have modern features that are difficult with the old UNIX-from-1970s philosophy.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475845)

If systemd were about 100 separate packages that were drop in replacements for existing functionality, I'd insult them and quickly move on. It's not. It's an all or nothing option that replaces most of userspace with things which are demonstrably worse, bloatier, more binary, and generally as anti-unix as you can get. I will never run it on my systems. I would probably go to openBSD right now but I've got too much stuff running ext4 soft RAID on linux, so it would be a huge pain. As it is, I'll stick with Crux and Slackware, who do not have systemd.

-DX

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about two weeks ago | (#47475895)

Systemd vs init: It's a Swiss Army knife vs a chef's knife. A shiny abomination that does "everything" complexly and half-assed,

systemd needs improvements in many areas - I can't argue with that.

However, it's worth noting that in my past few days of playing with CentOS 7 [bfccomputing.com] , it's been tremendously faster than CentOS 6 on every workload I've been able to throw at it.

I haven't done a deep dive to figure out why exactly, but I have noticed 'tuned' running, doing some dynamic system optimizations, it seems via systemd's control of cgroups.

Lennart's handling of bug reports makes my blood boil as much as the next guy, but there may very well be some baby in that dirty bathwater.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47476121)

The main improvement systemd needs is that is has to stop forcing itself on people and raping their systems. It has to be an option among many, not the "one true way". And forcing itself on people at this crappy, early stage is beyond anything I have ever seen, and can only be attributed to total disrespect for all Linux users. If systemd were stable, secure and well-documented, I would say these people were just severely misguided. This way I can only call what they are doing outright malicious.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47475967)

I like this analogy! The reason I use Linux is that I like excellent, simple and clear tools which are decidedly "user serviceable parts inside". I do mess with the init-system in occasion, and some of my hacks have been reliable with the traditional init for more than a decade now. The systemd answer to that is "submit a patch", in C no less and if they do not like it (which is standard), have it rejected. How that can be viewed as an improvement is beyond me.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (2)

arth1 (260657) | about two weeks ago | (#47475601)

No, generally emacs users are happy with systems that have both emacs and vi, and emacs won't prevent vi (and all the tools depending on ex/ed) from working.
This is more like replacing ISC bind with samba domain controller. It's incomplete, broken by design, and has so many levels of abstractions that no sane person can admin it without specialized tools.

I'm already boycotting Red Hat 7 because of the poetterification that changes simple things that work to complex things that don't. Now Xorg will have to go too.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47475915)

Emacs never tried to crush vi. Systemd is trying to crowd out all other init-systems and to remove choice from the user. That is a bit different.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475367)

"...I will end up having to make my Linux-servers X-less and probably use Windows as terminal."

Say what? Welcome to the internet my friend. We usually don't run any type of Unix server with a Graphical User Interface (GUI). It's unneccssary, as most things can be done through bash (the command line interface or CLI) without the overhead and security risks with running unneeded software. Running a GUI is what you would normally do when running a Windows based operating system for a server, though there are exceptions here.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475369)

Anyone thinking about defending systemd should read this [pappp.net] .

Mod parent up.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475521)

Anyone thinking about defending systemd should read this [pappp.net] .

Interesting read, but my "defense" of systemd is usually an "systemd could be the devil himself and you'd still sound like a paranoid asshat." I don't care if people don't want to use systemd. but shouldn't they be putting effort into collaborating on a set of remove-systemd-dependancy patches instead of bitching on the internet about the inevitable?

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

armanox (826486) | about two weeks ago | (#47476453)

Not really, because the systemd group is creating the issue.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about two weeks ago | (#47475789)

And why should I give a rats ass what some random blogger thinks about software? Pappp's opinion about SystemD is as relevant as the homeless person down the street.

There will always be a Linux distribution that doesn't use systemD, if you are so adamant about not using it, don't use it instead of trying to convince everyone else it's evil because CLEARLY everyone else doesn't agree with you. You people that hate systemd are worse than "born-again's" and mormons and just like them you don't have the answer and I don't care what you think about it.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (3, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about two weeks ago | (#47475869)

You've got that exactly backwards. The systemd lovers are more like the people who say "I don't care WHAT the Mormons believe, as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior".

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47476145)

Well said.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476233)

And why should I give a rats ass what some random blogger thinks about software? Pappp's opinion about SystemD is as relevant as the homeless person down the street.

So he's made some reasonable observations, tied them together, and you have nothing to say about them? You're really just going to dismiss them offhand like that? That's funny, because I always figured /. to be healthily skeptical. What happened to weighing arguments on their merits and not the titles attached to their speaker's name?

There will always be a Linux distribution that doesn't use systemD, if you are so adamant about not using it, don't use it instead of trying to convince everyone else it's evil because CLEARLY everyone else doesn't agree with you. You people that hate systemd are worse than "born-again's" and mormons and just like them you don't have the answer and I don't care what you think about it.

The problem is, at some unspecified point in the future it may become impossible to have a working system without systemd. It's more obvious in the case of a "graphical system" since we already have desktop environments adopting systemd, and now we've got X doing it. This is a conversation that needs to be had. A small cadre of developers is making choices which will likely impact the *nix community for a long, long time and the proposed solution has unmet criticism.

I never claimed to have the answer. I don't need to have a valid solution to criticize an existing one; the criticism remains just as valid.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

dbc (135354) | about two weeks ago | (#47476863)

Great link. Very well stated.

Linux kernel? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475459)

I really hope it is not a requirement and will never be on for kernel.org. Otherwise, I will end up having to make my Linux-servers Linux kernel-less and probably use Windows as an OS. After all, with the linux kernel, windows-like levels of intransparency, insecurity, complexity and developer arrogance have already been reached. One system with that is quite enough, I do not need to deal with that crap on Linux as well.

Same goes for glibc!

Re:Linux kernel? Not on my system... (0)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47476159)

You should start taking your meds again.

Re:Linux kernel? Not on my system... (1)

armanox (826486) | about two weeks ago | (#47476477)

You could always run a non-GNU Linux setup if you don't like glibc. I'm all in favor of that!

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (-1)

Omicron32 (646469) | about two weeks ago | (#47475561)

I don't know why these anti-systemd posts get upvoted so much. I work with ~40 other Linux sysadmins and we're all excited for systemd, just waiting for our next upgrade cycle (to CentOS/RHEL 7) to start full rollout. systemd makes system administration a joy.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475893)

It's a different story here, we are all dreading the change.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476295)

Systemd needlessly adds complexity. Maybe for sysadmins it's worth it, but I'd take the simplicity of init scripts over the mess that is systemd any day. Mind you, I use systemd due to it being the standard on Archlinux. It's nice that it's parallel but it's a pain to use when compared with SysV.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (5, Interesting)

DeHackEd (159723) | about two weeks ago | (#47476481)

Here's a true story. I was in a CentOS 7 system via chroot and trying to troubleshoot some problems. If it were CentOS 6 I would just run "service rsyslog start" and have syslog running in the chroot so I can get the diagnostics I was expecting, but since systemd wasn't actually running I couldn't do that. I had to launch rsyslog directly by command-line, but then it didn't listen on /dev/log like it's supposed to and I had no logging. After all, it's systemd integrated now and gets its listen socket a different way. And this is just the most recent incident.

Systemd may be technically better than sysvinit but the latter is just shell scripts which are sufficiently independent of anything else and just work. Systemd takes over your machine and wants to get its hands into everything to the point that you can't even use it anymore without systemd. This is what we're worried about what will happen to X.Org and other software.

Re: Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476563)

Why couldn't you just use journalctl?

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

armanox (826486) | about two weeks ago | (#47476495)

Not the story here. We are not moving to RHEL 7 because of systemD (and I don't make that decision, although I support avoiding systemD. It doesn't offer me anything but headache).

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (2)

ogdenk (712300) | about two weeks ago | (#47475685)

I'm still a little confused as to why the Linux crowd didn't just adopt launchd from Apple. It's open-source as well and while "different" it's launch scripts are readable and it does its job quite well. Personally, I prefer the old BSD rc scripts but I can tolerate launchd. Systemd looks like a far bigger mess and will end up fragmenting quite a few projects. I imagine GNOME functionality under FreeBSD will take a nosedive. systemd seems very "Un-UNIXy".

As long as systemd support remains OPTIONAL in X.Org I'll be a happy man. It's times like these I'm glad I'm a BSD guy.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (2)

gweihir (88907) | about two weeks ago | (#47476191)

I completely agree to that. I do not object to systemd's existence. I disagree with the way it is forced on people. Next, it will probably try to invade libc. It already tried to mess with the kernel, but fortunately was stopped. At this time, it seems only Gentoo and Slackware have long time plans to do without it or leave it optional. Gentoo had to fork udev to make that possible. All other major distros seem to have caved to pressure and, as far as I can see, without any arguments that are based on any real merit systemd has.

Re:Systemd? Not on my system... (1)

Maltheus (248271) | about two weeks ago | (#47476677)

I've just made it back from RTFA and Phoronix is calling it "Optional systemd Support".

systemd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475335)

I am excited about XWayland support, I would like to give wayland a try and maybe even write a dead simple compositor for building simple WMs on. I am not excited about systemd though (also not surprised), does anyone know if systemd is a dependency of X now?

-DX

X, systemd, and priveleges? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475341)

Is this configuration, currently the only way to run X with non-root priveleges? Is there no way to use OpenRC to run X as non-root? Or is that statement in the headline such that, with systemd, you can finally run X as non-root?

Re:X, systemd, and priveleges? (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | about two weeks ago | (#47475687)

The latter. Prior to this change it was impossible to run X as non-root, it took significant work (and a more capable init system) to support non-root X.

Re:X, systemd, and priveleges? (2)

dpilot (134227) | about two weeks ago | (#47476243)

Are you able to explain more?

My impression is that there were 2 issues with non-root X - mode setup and input device management. KMS and DRI2/DRI3 take care of the former, and I'm under the impression that systemd-logind takes care of the latter. But ultimately these are all just kernel interfaces - if systemd-logind has a root-helper and makes a series of kernel calls to manage the input devices, then that same job could be done by some other piece of software.

Again, do you understand the base mechanism at work here?

Re: X, systemd, and priveleges? (1)

BitwizeGHC (145393) | about two weeks ago | (#47476941)

Running X as non-root requires systemd-logind. Currently the only way for the X server to do the device management it needs to run is to either be root or delegate it to systemd-logind. You don't like it? Code up another way, and convince the Xorg, GNOME, and KDE developers to adopt your way.

Systemd is widely adopted because the systemd developers solved real problems with working code.

What about non-Linux users? (5, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | about two weeks ago | (#47475387)

So, to me it sounds like they are moving to being Linux only. As someone who supports multiple UNIX flavors (AIX, Solaris, HP UX, IRIX, and FreeBSD), all of which are running some form of X (and several of them running X.Org), I am displeased with the trend towards all of the primarily Linux dependencies for a lot of software - GNOME 3, Wayland, and now features of X11.

As a primarily linux user: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475413)

I can tell you I feel similiarly.

But until and unless a large percentage of the community starts coughing up money to directly pay devs otherwise, they're going to do what their corporate masters (primarily redhat, but also other tech incumbents) choose to do.

It's the same reason lots of other tech has made it into the linux kernel but taken years to a decade to make it into BSD. If the community isn't ponying up the cash to keep the development in a direction they desire, then some corporation will coopt it and pervert it into something we hate.

It's not the first nor last piece of software we'll see this happening with.

Re:What about non-Linux users? (3, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about two weeks ago | (#47475449)

I am displeased with the trend towards all of the primarily Linux dependencies for a lot of software - GNOME 3, Wayland, X11

We had a GNOME 3 dev on here a while ago. Apparently they've been working hard to get the features of GNOME3 working without systemd.

As for X11, it also has this feature to run rootless in Windows. However, that doesn't affect me as a Linux user. I think adding integration with more systems is generally done well on Xorg.

Re:What about non-Linux users? (1)

acoopersmith (87160) | about two weeks ago | (#47475947)

Xorg continues to run fine on Solaris, since Oracle pays developers (including myself) to make sure Xorg continues to work and to contribute fixes upstream. Xorg continues to run fine on most BSD's, since BSD developers continue to contribute fixes upstream to make that happen. Of course, neither of those platforms get all the features, such as those requiring systemd/udev, because no one has stepped forward to write the code for them. The Xorg server has never run on AIX, HPUX, or IRIX, since no one who used those platforms ever cared enough to port it. (Isn't IRIX EOL'ed by SGI now anyway?)

Re:What about non-Linux users? (2)

armanox (826486) | about two weeks ago | (#47476289)

I know it never ran on IRIX - IRIX uses XSgi. The HP-UX box I currently have access to (which is horribly outdated) is running XFree86. AIX, however, does use X.Org. (BTW, IRIX wasn't EOL until the beginning of this year)

bash-4.2$ /usr/X11R7/bin/Xorg -version

X Window System Version 7.1.1
Release Date: 12 May 2006
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 7.1.1
Build Operating System: AIX IBM
Current Operating System: AIX aix71 1 7 00036A2AD300
Build Date: 07 July 2006
                Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org/ [x.org]
                to make sure that you have the latest version.

XFree86 Passed Away in 2008 At Version 4.8.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475417)

Good software despite it's flaws, it will be missed.

"An anonymous reader writes" (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47475755)

FUCK OFF MICHAEL LARABEL

And the dirfference is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476099)

Let's see, not run X as root... this is different than startx from runlevel 3 exactly how?

Oh, and for the ignorant idiot, most distros of Linux work just fine out of the box for desktops. Certainly CentOS/RHEL, and Ubuntu, and SuSE do. Why, what were you thinking of... or is it that you've never *used* Linux?

                mark

Re:And the dirfference is? (1)

dpilot (134227) | about two weeks ago | (#47476553)

OK, I'll feed the troll. Either X or an X wrapper is suid root. Find the right hole in X, and you've got root. I presume that X or an X wrapper tries to do the best it can, drops capabilities, etc. But it would still be better to not be root at all.

Well, time to switch to __OTHER_OS__! (-1)

DwayneWithAnO (3751997) | about two weeks ago | (#47476149)

I was using Linux happily until I found __SOMETHING_THAT_CHANGED___ but now it sucks! Why don't the developers of __SOMETHING_THAT_CHANGED__ listen to MY concerns? Sure I don't code, I don't submit bug reports, I don't donate to developers or anything like that but I am still 100% entitled to dictate to those people who do do those things how they should do them! But now that they have implemented __SOMETHING_THAT_CHANGED__ I have no choice but to switch to __OTHER_OS__ because unlike Linux it doesn't have __SOMETHING_THAT_CHANGED__.

Re:Well, time to switch to __OTHER_OS__! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47476225)

Best post of the thread.

Re:Well, time to switch to __OTHER_OS__! (3)

armanox (826486) | about two weeks ago | (#47476545)

Actually, a lot of us, including Linus Torvalds, do submit bug reports and patches to various groups (such as GNOME) that get promptly ignored or rejected because of politics.

And in my case, it's "I was using Linux happily until I tried other operating systems, and realized how horrible the GNU/Linux setup really is"

um... not to be gross, but... (1)

UncHellMatt (790153) | about two weeks ago | (#47476469)

Did this dude get so excited over the release that he peed his pants? http://www.phoronix.com/image-... [phoronix.com]

Re:um... not to be gross, but... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about two weeks ago | (#47476535)

My ass used to sweat like that when I was a teenager. Horribly embarrassing all around but there you have it. Since this image is not presented in smellovision we have no way to know for sure.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...