SystemD
-
i like systemd
-
In that case why not share your opinion?
Instead you've claimed you're neutral and shared links to the views of 15 other people.
You haven't even quoted anything from these articles that concern you.
Everything about this screams you're asking in bad faith just hoping to waste people's time or start an argument.
-
I was impressed they resisted calling it micro$oft. That's the usual sign of somebody adopting the tribal views of others.
-
I've never used another init system, but i see no problem with systemd. The declaritive approach makes things very robust. Surely some things can be improved, but it's a good tool.
-
It feels a bit childish to call it microshit, micropenis, micro$oft etc if there is no specific context IMO.
-
I personally don't really care much about the init system. For most of my linux journey i was using arch, then void, then nixos, and now i'm back on void, so i jumped between systemd and runit for a bit. I never chose to use void because of its init system though, i just prefer its package manager. I found both systemd and runit to be fairly simple to use and it just gets out of my way. Poettering working for microsoft has concerned me a little bit, but if i'm being honest that's just me wearing the tin foil hat. I will say though that at this point, if something were to happen to void and i had to move back to arch, i might try using artix just for the style points, and because of me already being familiar with runit anyway.
-
Systemd is a good init system. Better than any of the alternatives, although they've also come a long way since systemd first came around. It's also a weird interconnected mess of a thousand other things that probably shouldn't all be lumped together into a single project. Half of them are absolutely vital to the vast majority of Linux systems, and half of them are unused and neglected and no one has touched them in years, but they're all stuck together in one weird project for some reason.
That's kind of the exact same sort of situation xorg was in 20 years ago. I am concerned that systemd is going to turn into the next xorg, but really those concerns are the only reason most people should consider an alternative. If you don't care about that, you probably don't need to worry about systemd.
-
This isn't really an important point or anything, but I always find it odd when people bring up sysv init when talking about systemd. That's kind of like arguing that people should switch to Linux because Windows Vista was bad. It's not wrong, exactly, but it is a very weird thing to bring up in 2025.
-
Thank you, at least somebody took care to actually respond to my question somehow!
-
Yeah, as i stated i am not questioning systemd good or bad, useful or not, but the non-techinical aspects highlighted in the links...
-
Yes, that is one point. Having the main dev working for "the enemy". Systemd being developed by the main dev who is at microsoft?
To me that rings some bells.He will keep doing a great job, he is paid for this, but the point is that microsoft could try to control linux a bit too much, and so is IBM...
-
If you don't care about systemd, then why post?
Sysvinit is done. It is not graceful at handling dependant services, it was hard to test, and customising a service was painful compared to unit files.
For someone who's been at Linux for 30 years, you clearly haven't spent any time fighting with init scripts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Poettering. His approach lacks any empathy for anyone who's entrenched in a current system and breaks stuff with his deployment approach.
But run0 solves a LOT of problems with sudo, problems that have always existed. Have you ever tried to deploy a sudoers file in an ecosystem of Linux systems relying on LDAP? Sudo definitely needs fixing.
-
Probably it's too much asking to go trough all of them indeed, it's lemmy afterall, already most of the comments didnt actually read the entire first post either.
But i think i didnt have to provide "pro-systemd" links as my intent is not to discuss it's technical goodness (which i do not dispute!) but to understand what is the common idea about the fact that systemd could be a critical part of Linux which is in the hands of IBM and Microsoft and what this means for the linux community overall.
Either nobody cares, or it's too much complottistic to be real.
-
Yeah, OpenRC is pretty good IMHO, never had an issue with it. sysv is just like comparing to Windows 3.1 i guess.
-
And yes you exactly waste people time
Jokes apart, well i think that having a core component so much linked to IBM and Microsoft is a potential danger to Linux itself. What if it was the kernel to be in the hands of Google and Microsoft? Where would Linux as we know it be going to?
This is concerning, i think. I thought it was clear from the first post. I dont want to share an opinion on how good or bad systemd is from a technical point of view, because i do not have such an opinion because i use OpenRC and never used systemd long enough to judge it from a tech pov
-
This is concern indeed, but not using systemd myself, i don't care too much.
Is the fact that such a critical core compoent spanning everywhere in the system is under the control of IBM and Microsoft that concerns me.
-
Cool! Maybe for a tight, small system is good? Let me know if you come to conclusions.
-
Yeah the telegram post that i copied here is indeed pretty polarized against systemd, that's why i reported it integrally because that is not my view, and i think that is dumb to call names microsoft or the like. Still i find it concerning that microsoft and IBM controls somehow systemd and what that means, if it gets even more rooted inside everything in linux.
-
Systemd provides a modern user space which fixes a huge number of problems. Ar first I found it difficult to learn and adapt but it had things I needed and I made the effort. I will always be nostalgic about things before systemd because I started using linux the mid 90s.
I'm not going to throw by GPU and multi-core CPU and go back to a 386 running dos ecause multithreaded applications and speculative execution scare me.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with running a BSD or a non-systemd linux distro if you like. They are still perfectly usable in a lot of situations doing the same stuff people did for years in these systems. If you have a server with a static set of devices that runs a fixed set of services at startup you don't really need systemd. I still have some systems like that but systems also handles those cases more efficiently and robustly.
You see these sort of link dumps from people who think vaccines cause autism or that some diet will cure cancer. Whatever the intention behind it I always associate it with a bad faith attempt to fuck with people's heads by bamboozling them with more information than they can rationally analyze. Believe what you want but you might want to consider that all the experts working on systemd and using it productively might know their shit.
-
Again i am not interested in the technical aspect of systemd, yes i do like handling init scripts (OpenRC, not sysv...) so maybe i am a bit unconventional. The point i was trying to make was about how sustainable is having a core piece of linux that keeps growing managed by IBM and Microsoft, and if this was of concern with anybody else, which seems not to be the case.
