First off, systemd is not an init system, it has an init system as part of the systemd suite...

It is pure shit, but it works. Like Windows.

>rm -rf /foo/.* bricking your system is "not much of a problem"
>lock all threads discussing bugs
>a trillion GB of dumb binary logs
>cryptic, useless error messages
>over 1M lines of mostly un-audited code
>no specific problem to solve, just a spreading virus
>embraces tight-coupling design as if weren't the bane of good engineering
>why keep things modular and open when we can all submit to a redhat/NSA monopoly?
It doesn't solve a single specific problem, just offers a lot of unnecessary conveniences so that we can all have our own in-home NSA wiretap, mac, wangblows, and linux alike. If that doesn't sell it for you, I don't know what will! What was that thing Ben Franklin said? Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither? Except this is trading freedom AND security for convenience.

I'm terribly sorry for interjecting another moment, but what I just told you is GNU/Linux is, in fact, just Linux, or as I've just now taken to calling it, Just Linux. Linux apparently does happen to be a whole operating system unto itself and comprises a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Most computer users who run the entire Linux operating system every day already realize it. Through a peculiar turn of events, I was misled into calling the system "GNU/Linux", and until now, I was unaware that it is basically the Linux system, developed by the Linux project.

There really isn't a GNU/Linux, and I really wasn't using it; it is an extraneous misrepresentation of the system that's being used. Linux is the operating system: the entire system made useful by its included corelibs, shell utilities, and other vital system components. The kernel is already an integral part of the Linux operating system, never confined useless by itself; it functions coherently within the context of the complete Linux operating system. Linux is never used in combination with GNU accessories: the whole system is basically Linux without any GNU added, or Just Linux. All the so-called "GNU/Linux" distributions are really distributions of Linux.

Attached: GNU_and_Stallman_2012.jpg (2348x1736, 903K)

By using and accepting systemd you are actively screwing over everyone else in the long run. There, I said it

ignore lennart posters
use runit
these

...

Openrc parallel boot is buggy and in development
Runit is old and not really maintained
Systemd is the only logical answer.

>Openrc parallel boot is buggy and in development
Works perfectly.

>Runit is old and not really maintained
Runit isn't a giant bloated mess and doesn't need a lot of maintenance. The codebase is small and does exactly what it needs to do. Works perfectly.

>Systemd is the only logical answer.
Fuck off Poettering.

a standard lowlevel userland for Linux, or, as I have recently taken to calling it, the systemd luserland

Attached: 1469916851206.png (258x298, 209K)

>hurr bloat
You do realize that systemd is modular right? You can disable almost everything at build time.

the SVChost of linux
this wont bite anyone in the ass in about 5 years.

Switched to runit recently, it is very nice and much lighter. Love it. The transition was very smooth

Go cry in your corner little guy, you already lost the war, every major distros adopted systemd for good reason.

Systemd is not really modular. Sure you can disable certain options, but that will often break other systemd binaries which are not easily replaceable. It's more of a tightly coupled mess of binaries that you pretty much require. Try running systemd without journald and see how far you get.

"follow the leader" is not a good reason

>everyone's jumping off the cliff so ha! take that looser
-t. glows in the dark

There's no use trying to discount the facts, these people are developers, I'm sure their reasoning is better than your arbitrary complaints.

There's no way anyone except a shill could have this retarded of logic, is there? VHS beat betamax because it was better, right?

It's only a fallacy when talking about the retarded general population, systemd is popular among developers, I'm going to repeat myself in plain English just for you, their opinion is worth more than yours.

I like using GNU/Linux but I don't why systemd is bad or good. Please explain either position in retard terms.

>systemd is popular among developers
Which developers? The ones who are being paid to develop it? The ones who have to use it at work because their employer pays for support from RH or their project has been built against it? Or the many who are forking various distros just to avoid systemd, contributing to other init systems, making websites to compile all that is wrong with its methods and goals, despairing at upstream responses to serious, sometimes hardware-bricking bugs, or implementing workarounds like uselessd, eudev, and notsystemd? systemd is analogous to vhs, except that it's become "standard" due to RH and gnome instead of the porn industry. Can you name another project in the linux ecosystem that has inspired so many people to develop workarounds and replacements? And that's what you consider "popular with developers"? The opinions of the legions of dissenting developers are worth far more than yours, too, buddy.

bad:
- systemd has absorbed udev, consolekit, and cryptsetup, which makes it harder to support things software that has dependencies on those libraries. gnome seems to have taken a lot of effort to port to openrc.
- systemd isn't concerned with portability, with glibc and linux being hard dependencies
- reactions to CVEs in systemd have been pretty poor, such as the response to 0day being "don't do that"
- journald is an absolute clusterfuck because of its binary logs and it seems to be mandatory if you're running systemd. I think you can run syslog on top of it though.
- terrible error messages
good (compared to init scripts):
- parallel startup
- dependency resolution

I get that init scripts are kind of awful in a way, but I've used devuan, which uses init scripts, and it booted up really fast.
The alternative of openrc seems easier to use and doesn't have a ton of unnecessary shit.

>except that it's become "standard" due to RH and gnome
I'm sure they didn't adopt systemd for no reason, if you're trying to discredit their actions, provide your own instead of just ridiculing them.
>Can you name another project in the linux ecosystem that has inspired so many people to develop workarounds and replacements?
And yet not a single one of them has gained any traction.
>The opinions of the legions of dissenting developers are worth far more than yours, too, buddy.
Stop projecting your nonsense onto me, I never said my opinion is worth more than anyone, that said though, I'm much more comfortable siding with the people behind major distros instead of the loud minority who has to go through quite a lot of mental gymnastics and fallacies in order to discredit the facts.

>>reliable supervision

I still need to see proof of this. I work with a couple of thousand machines running Debian 9, and I am always finding machines where systemd just stopped restarting processes.

>portability
I don't understand this, you faggots claim that the mass adaption of systemd is bad and yet you attack it because it's not portable? Do you want the BSDs to start adopting systemd too?

Fix your code.

Attached: foetering.jpg (864x576, 161K)

>I'm sure they didn't adopt systemd for no reason
>corporate "not developed here" practices means the tool itself is better rather than a means of consolidating marketshare
Okay, bud. I guess I should switch to windows 10 since they've got all these good reasons for what they do. I already gave my reasons here , plus additional stuff mentioned by someone else here .
>And yet not a single one of them has gained any traction.
That's not even a counterargument and I don't know what you mean by "gained any traction". systemd adoption was a domino effect which precipitated the creation of various systemd-free distros that now have solid user bases as well as mass migrations to stuff like slackware and gentoo. I've got eudev on all my laptops.
>Stop projecting your nonsense onto me, I never said my opinion is worth more than anyone, that said though
>that said though
What is this chain of rhetorical bullshit you're spewing? MY opinion is worth less than the developers you blindly side with, YOU "never said" your opinion was worth more than anyone, but let's ignore the enormous time and effort so many users AND distro developers have spent avoiding a large, centrally planned and developed corporate dependency quagmire. Your position boils down to following whatever is backed by the most paid developers and assuming their corporate decisions reflect superior technical merit. What profound naivety and stupidity.
>instead of the loud minority who has to go through quite a lot of mental gymnastics and fallacies in order to discredit the facts.
Pray tell, what are these fallacies and mental gymnastics I'm performing? The fact is that far more people use windows 10 than any linux distro, and it has far more paid developers, so does that mean 10 has better "reasons" for its development decisions? You get that adopting systemd was the path of least resistance for distro maintainers compared to dropping support for gnome, don't you?

Why are you suddenly bringing windows into this? Are you really so incapable of thinking you had to resort to petty ridicules?
Your reasons are either a bunch of empty claims with no proof or arbitrary nonsenses that's been debunked so many times it's hilarious. You either say something along the lines of "bloat" or you attack the people behind systemd in a feeble attempt to justify your "reasons".
0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html
All of your arguments are already addressed in that page, before you call Poettering names I'm going to remind you that ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

>Do you want the BSDs to start adopting systemd too?
I want the BSDs to use software ports that are dependent on systemd standalone libraries. A lot of software depends on things like logind and dbus. If those libraries aren't portable, porting over the standalone libraries is going to require more effort, which means less software for everyone who isn't using systemd.
Also, do you want to be locked to glibc forever? Do you want systemd to choose what other software you use?
>And yet not a single one of them has gained any traction.
Is it cheating to point out Android?
I don't think chromeos does either.
Devuan, Gentoo and Slackware all have a reasonably large audience. They're not just some hobby project that university student maintains.
Do you really make your software choices based off what's popular? Ubuntu is one of the most popular out there, and it's mediocre as a power use distro and a normie distro.
>You get that adopting systemd was the path of least resistance for distro maintainers compared to dropping support for gnome
>the worst DE has that much power
I wish a big distro like Debian would have just dropped support and then a better DE, like MATE, would have taken over.

>A lot of software depends on things like logind and dbus. If those libraries aren't portable, porting over the standalone libraries is going to require more effort
What's stopping them from forking what they need? You're making it sound like once systemd adopts something they become its exclusive property.
>Do you really make your software choices based off what's popular?
No but I don't shit on something just because it's popular. Systemd is useful for me, that's why I use it.

In addition to what the other user said
Systemd's flaws are very obvious on SBCs.
Systemd defaults to many controversial solutions, e.g. google dns, there are usernames that are forbidden to use for no reason, even though linux doesn't have any limitation,
And the most important is compatibility with *nix. The fellows at bsd are having a very hard time porting packages to bsd that have systemd dependancy. Gnome is a great example.
Systemd doesn't only harm systemd distros but also non-systemd distros and also other unix-compatible OSes.
When you introduce a successor, be sure to solve some of the predecessor's probkens, not augment them and on top of that introduce a few more.

>The fellows at bsd are having a very hard time porting packages to bsd that have systemd dependancy. Gnome is a great example.
Is this really a surprise for anyone? You're trying to use something but then refuse to accept its dependencies. That's like saying you want mpv but don't want ffmpeg.

systemd is the way of the white man, just like ISO files.

>What's stopping them from forking what they need?
The increased effort may stop them. Gentoo didn't offer gnome for a long time because of the effort required to make it work with standalone libraries.
If systemd did a better job with portability and modularity, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
>You're making it sound like once systemd adopts something they become its exclusive property
how did you go from extra effort to exclusive property?
>I don't shit on something just because it's popular
I only shit on Ubuntu because Ubuntu is mediocre. Debian and Arch are pretty good, apart from systemd.
>Systemd is useful for me, that's why I use it
Is there any functionality that systemd has, which can't be done with openrc and standalone systemd libs?
>Systemd's flaws are very obvious on SBCs
like what?
>google dns
Wasn't this something that distributors were suppose to change at compile time?

>just don't use any software that depends on logind, dbus, cryptsetup, or udev.

Attached: 1522105975669.jpg (540x301, 26K)

>If systemd did a better job with portability and modularity, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
systemd isn't portable because it depends on Linux specific functionalities, if it's incompatible with the BSDs because they don't provide the same functionalities then you need to point your finger at them, not systemd. They didn't decide to make things incompatible just to impose extra work on everyone else.

the proper implementation of them pretty much is

can't handle forking daemons

debian still uses sysv initscripts on top of systemd

You really have to think through this one.
Tens of thousands of packages are cross-compatible from linux to bsd and even macos, and we don't speak about gimp or krita or firefox... We talk about clusterfucks of complex code like xorg kde gpu drivers e.t.c..
An idiot with his stupid packages appears, refuses to work on current packages and just replaces them with _his_ conception of how things should work. Note that decades of finetuning s/w and settling on features have disappeared because that idiot wants to do it its own way.
Gnome is the greatest example of the systemd manipulation because gnome is backed mostly by redhat and redhat also makes systemd.
Do you know what this means? Vendor Locked "foss".
Did you get that? Vendor locked opensource software.
...and you are locked even if you don't use it, because if your distro doesn't use systemd but has gnome, then they spent way too much time removing pottering's dependancies which removes time that other packages require to be maintained.

>I get that init scripts are kind of awful in a way, but I've used devuan, which uses init scripts, and it booted up really fast.
aka you have no real experience maintaining sysvinit systems but will offer your opinion on the subject anyway

Surely there are forks that don't depend on systemd? I don't see how you're forced to use systemd if there are working alternatives.

>systemd isn't portable because it depends on Linux specific functionalities
That is about as non-portable as you could get. You're effectively just inventing new standards and forcing people to follow them.
They also depend on glibc specific behavior, so you will have problems on some Linux systems.
It's a bit like saying that non-portable windows software is fine because WINE exists.
>They didn't decide to make things incompatible just to impose extra work on everyone else
They do it because it reduces the amount of work that they need to do, at the cost of fucking everyone else over.
I just wanted to point out that the boot time was pretty good, even though it's using sysvinit.

>Tens of thousands of packages are cross-compatible from linux to bsd and even macos
Yes but none of them are as low level as systemd, systemd is designed to work with Linux exclusive features, does it surprise you that it only works with Linux?
>refuses to work on current packages and just replaces them
How exactly did he replace the old versions? And what's stopping people from replacing his?
>if your distro doesn't use systemd but has gnome, then they spent way too much time removing pottering's dependancies which removes time that other packages require to be maintained.
Soounds to me like nobody's bothered to actually step up and make something that's better than systemd or even simpler, actually work on fixing what they perceive as systemd's flaws.

>at the cost of fucking everyone else over.
You do realize it's impossible to cater to everyone on this planet right? The fact that it's a such problem to replace systemd just means that there's no viable alternative yet, if anyone came up with something that's capable of completely replacing systemd while also being better at doing what it does we wouldn't be having this conversation.

>What was that thing Ben Franklin said? Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither?

>Using that butchered quote which isn't what he actually said
Good case you got.

>You do realize it's impossible to cater to everyone on this planet right?
yes, this is why standards like POSIX exist to allow people to have portability with relative ease.
>The fact that it's a such problem to replace systemd just means that there's no viable alternative yet
The fact that it's such a problem to replace windows just means that there's no viable alternative yet
>if anyone came up with something that's capable of completely replacing systemd while also being better at doing what it does we wouldn't be having this conversation
Gentoo has an alternative to just about everything else. The problem is that software, like gnome, is built around these non-portable systemd libraries, so patching is required.

I don't get why Gnome is being mentioned so much and why is it so relevant when it's shit anyway, systemd or not.

>this is trading freedom AND security for convenience.
Nope. Systemd is libre, in fact it uses a license which protects your freedom (LGPL) instead of the less free licenses of runit and openrc which use BSD variants.
If you care are a political advocate of freedom, systemd is the more free of the bunch. The only other defender of freedom (GPL/LGPL) init system is Shepherd used by GuixSD.

>The fact that it's such a problem to replace windows just means that there's no viable alternative yet
We both know viable alternatives to windows exist, the same can't be said about systemd, otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular choice, just like how windows isn't the most popular OS by any stretch of the imagination.

>We both know viable alternatives to windows exist
Most CAD software, video editing software and video games don't run on non-windows natively. Some of them might run on WINE, but performance and compatibility is inferior.
>the same can't be said about systemd
there's very little that hasn't been ported to non-systemd systems. It's a huge black hole of resources, but the work has been done and systemd is effectively deprecated.
>otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular choice
whatever android uses is the most popular choice

>systemd is effectively deprecated
So why is it still widely used? Surely developers would be moving en masse to whatever obsoletes it if such a thing exist.

>linking to Poettering's blog
wew lad, keep shilling your Red Hat faggotry

>it's not a resource I like so it's wrong

Nice copypasta

>there's clearly no conflict of interest of it's written by the same guy who develops systemd

>none of them are as low level as systemd
drivers are not low enough for you?
>How exactly did he replace the old versions
there was an ecosystem before systemd that worked for over a decade ... and that ecosystem had interchangable components.
systemd decided that it can do everything, they broke dependancies and now many packages, mostly those maintained by redhat are depending on systemd.
>nobody's bothered to actually step up and make something that's better than systemd
that's simply a false assumption. not only systemd didn't fix many problems, but introduced a lot more.
>work on fixing what they perceive as systemd's flaws
you generally sound like someone who's wasting my time, because it's obvious that you haven't bothered educating yourself. A very short visit at systemd's github page will show you that pottering doesn't like cooperating with others.

...and in case of "forking", forking systemd means that you have to fork every useless feature and package that systemd has.
"hey, i don't like this init daemon, let's fork it"
little did that faggot knew that forking that simple init, now he has to maintain logind, journald, tmpfiles, timedated, udevd, libudev, systemd-boot.

systemd is not run by a committee for the good of loonix and *bsd, systemd is run by a corporation that cares about shekels. They support gnome, because they make money out of it, they made systemd because now they can chose what to support and what to throw away, they don't have the obligation to support features that don't make them money or enough money.

Soon enough, SystemD will be it's own OS, and a bit more it will be all the rest.

Can you provide actual arguments instead of relying on ad hominems? You would be defensive too if people were to shit on your creations.

> First off, systemd is not an init system, it has an init system as part of the systemd suite.

i just wish that fucking suite was in a separate repository. that is literally one main problem i have with it

>there was an ecosystem before systemd that worked for over a decade ... and that ecosystem had interchangable components.
>systemd decided that it can do everything, they broke dependancies and now many packages, mostly those maintained by redhat are depending on systemd.
Nice non-answer faggot, nobody held a gun to anyone's head, systemd replaced sysvinit because it's better.
>that's simply a false assumption. not only systemd didn't fix many problems, but introduced a lot more.
Such as?
>you generally sound like someone who's wasting my time, because it's obvious that you haven't bothered educating yourself. A very short visit at systemd's github page will show you that pottering doesn't like cooperating with others.
So you say, I'm not dumb enough to take your word for it.
>systemd is not run by a committee for the good of loonix and *bsd, systemd is run by a corporation that cares about shekels. They support gnome, because they make money out of it, they made systemd because now they can chose what to support and what to throw away, they don't have the obligation to support features that don't make them money or enough money.
So you hate systemd simply because it has corporate backings? Why aren't you screeching at Linus too for letting tech giants work on his kernel?

>you created systemd therefore your arguments are automatically invalid xD
Retard.

>Why are you suddenly bringing windows into this?
Because your only argument is "everyone else is doing it, so they must have good reasons", which is the same argument for using a closed, obfuscated system such as windows. It's an analogy, you fucking imbecile.
>our reasons are either a bunch of empty claims with no proof or arbitrary nonsenses that's been debunked so many times it's hilarious.
Such as? I have never once used the word "bloat", nor attacked anyone behind systemd. I haven't once referred to Poetterring, you anus-sniffing shill.

>I have never once used the word "bloat"
>over 1M lines of mostly unaudited code
You're apparently too retarded to even remember your own nonsensical ramblings, have you tried bringing your hatred for everything "bloated" over to the Linux mailing list? I'd love to see what they have to say to you.

Poettering plainly ignores valid bug reports and CVEs because be believes he can't commit mistakes, there's plenty of valid criticism in this thread and on hundred of sites out there, ignoring it and just pointing to Poettering's blog isn't an argument
His """""arguments""""" are strawmen at best
>there can only be a single person criticising systemd

>well designed
>streamlined
What a fucking joke.
systemd is better designed than dbus but that's not saying much.
You bunch of fucking brainlets think everything "complex" is well designed.
At the end of it all though, it doesn't really fucking matter, nobody gives a shit about shitstaind, the problem with it is not that it's written by a faggot who doesn't know how to write software. The problem is that this faggot loves to make everyone's life difficult by running marketing campaigns to try to make everyone gay. When this faggot stops pushing people towards making their software hard-depend on his shit and trying to purposefully make life without systemd more difficult (he is quoted saying this in an email) then we can end this discussion and leave you systemdfags to your own retarded delusional dream world of brain damaged "system management".

>ignoring it and just pointing to Poettering's blog isn't an argument
You made those claims, retard, the burden of proof is on you.
>His """""arguments""""" are strawmen at best
That's all you can come up with? You expect anyone to agree with you by dismissing his arguments?

>can't handle forking daemons
Then fix the daemon to only fork optionally. There's no need for a daemon to fork, it just makes things harder, if you insist on handling forking shit then it's not hard to write a wrapper (like the many people have already written) which deals with this. The idea is not to have this useless complexity be part of the supervisor program.
I use runit and the number of shitty software which actually relies on the double fork is very small and generally accepts the fix with no complaint.
Developers have nothing to do with supervisors and init and "system management". The fact that systemd insists that they should get in bed with them is not evidence of how things are actually done. 99% of software doesn't care if you're running systemd or not, but the 1% which does is because of retarded marketing campaigns and other tactics and this 1% is the actual problem.

>LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU CAN'T HEAR YOU
Stay butthurt, loser.

Attached: 1505871579755.jpg (500x640, 39K)

>retarded marketing campaigns and other tactics
Care to elaborate on what you mean by this?

>Such as?
>So you hate systemd simply because it has corporate backings
>I'm not dumb enough to take your word for it.
you come here to "discuss" about systemd, you don't know the limitations and assumptions that it makes on every platform that adopts it, which were not present with other similar packages,
you haven't even bothered looking at systemd's development process, and now you say to yourself that you are smart for doing so
and last but not least, out of the various reasons that I posted before, you think that I have problem with corporate backings.
I have problem with systemd's sandboxing, incompatibilities, bogus constraints, big overhead on low power systems(yeah systemd cripples your system's performance) and with it's alienation from bsd and linux with corporate leverages via gnome and pulseaudio.

bugs.gentoo.org/391945

>you haven't even bothered looking at systemd's development process
You claimed that Poettering refuses to work with anyone, do you really expect me to just believe you? Where's your proof?
>sandboxing
What exactly is wrong with it?
>incompatibilities
With what?
>bogus constraints
How exactly is it restraining you? Is anyone holding a gun to your head?
>yeah systemd cripples your system's performance
What makes you think that? Have you performed thorough benchmark to prove this claim of yours? Care to share your methods?
>with it's alienation from bsd and linux with corporate leverages via gnome and pulseaudio
Care to try that again in English? Try picking actual words instead of meaningless marketing terms next time.

>Soounds to me like nobody's bothered to actually step up and make something that's better than systemd
Except everything was already better than systemd. What is one specific problem that systemd actually solves that no preexisting init system could manage?

Thank you for your contribution of abject stupidity. None of my freedom is being protected by millions of lines of corporate-sponsored, un-audited code, regardless of the license.

>Why aren't you screeching at Linus too for letting tech giants work on his kernel?
Maybe because he isn't actually paid by them and can veto their additions as he sees fit, you semen slurping faggot. I don't think you actually understand what corporate influence entails; it means features that are added for the profit of a corporation by people who are paid by that corporation, regardless of need, technical merit, or community support.

>have I used the word "bloat"?
>No, you absolutely haven't, but let me pretend that disapproval of millions of lines of un-audited code is merely an aversion to "bloat" AND ignore every other criticism you provided
Once again, what problem is systemd solving? You can't say something is bloat unless you know what the primary purpose of the software is. systemd has no specific primary deficiency to solve, and the issue is not a million lines of code, it is a million lines of un-audited code, you fucking chromosomally deficient retard. It is not bloat, it is garbage and a massive, unnecessary security and stability risk all to give RH more market leverage.

Can you please look up the definition of "ad hominem", you blithering fucking retard? Pointing out that poettering isn't a reliable source for deflecting all criticism against systemd isn't an "ad hominem" argument, it's taking a rational stance that doesn't involve shoving one's tongue up poettering's asshole.

>I can't read, but I must shill

>systemd bloat
That's a myth. Check out the actually running systemd processes in a systemd-based system, with fincore. Actual binary image size in ram (that is, run) is insignificant. Just a few kilobytes.
What's bloat is traditional sysvinit. Absolute mess of shell scripts. The shell itself (bash) is bloated.

>Where's your proof?
where I said it always was faggot, at systemd's page in github.
>What exactly is wrong with it?
portability
>With what?
with other distros and other unix-like OSes
>How exactly is it restraining you?
to have gnome you have to have systemd or spend hours upon removing rebuilding/refactoring all those redhat influences packages that you want to use
>Have you performed thorough benchmark
yes, benchmarks are available to see systemd vs anything else on SBCs
>Care to try that again in English?
I don't think english is your stronk point, I am already repeating myself the last few hours, but you are running on loops.
Do you want it in a different language? I speak 3 in total.

----
do you have any evidence that systemd _is_ faster? under which situations?
Do you have evidence that pottering is cooperative?
do you have evidence that systemd is not alienating itself from the rest of the gnu/linux/*bsd ecosystem?
do you have evidence for anything that you claim.
I told you were to look, there are 2-3 pages that cover 95% of your ignorance, the rest 5% has been covered in gorillions of threads about systemd, and there are a lot of pottering threads making fun of him for screwing it up in bug reports.
I hope you are getting paid for doing this shilling.

>to have gnome
>gnome
There. That's your problem.
GNOME is a shit ecosystem, and systemd is just part of it. Face it. Move to openbsd and a sane DE or just no DE at all.

>NSA is involved
citation needed, I've seen noindicationnof security or privacy flaws so I don't know what you base this off of.

Honestly systemd is great to use as a user, especially the unitfiles, logs, and service manager.

And who here is arguing that the biggest problem with systemd is the memory footprint or even generalized "bloat"? Read the fucking posts you're replying to, retard.

There's a reason why one's own testimony of "I wasn't there when that crime occurred" doesn't count for shit in court. Hint: it has nothing to do with "ad hominem" arguments.

>Except everything was already better than systemd.
Are you seriously saying that sysvinit was better than systemd? Are you actually retarded or just pretending?
>Maybe because he isn't actually paid by them
But he is, retard. Do you really think a married man with kids like him would keep working on Linux if he wasn't?
>I don't think you actually understand what corporate influence entails; it means features that are added for the profit of a corporation by people who are paid by that corporation
Intel, Google and co. all work on Linux for profit you dumb nigger, your retarded hatred for corporations is hilarious.
>Once again, what problem is systemd solving? You can't say something is bloat unless you know what the primary purpose of the software is. systemd has no specific primary deficiency to solve, and the issue is not a million lines of code, it is a million lines of un-audited code, you fucking chromosomally deficient retard. It is not bloat, it is garbage and a massive, unnecessary security and stability risk all to give RH more market leverage.
The fact that systemd completely replaced sysvinit tells me that it's doing something right, you calling it shit just because it's huge matters very little, do you also hate Linux because of how huge it is?
>Can you please look up the definition of "ad hominem", you blithering fucking retard? Pointing out that poettering isn't a reliable source for deflecting all criticism against systemd isn't an "ad hominem" argument, it's taking a rational stance that doesn't involve shoving one's tongue up poettering's asshole.
What makes you think it's rational to dismiss his argument solely because he created systemd? This kind of mental gymnastics is exactly what I was talking about, you haven't addressed even one of his arguments, because you're incapable to, you're too retarded to admit defeat.

I base it off the fact that you're a faggot, faggot.

>do you have any evidence that systemd _is_ faster? under which situations?
Why are you trying to turn the burden of proof on me? You're the one who said that systemd slows down everything, are you retarded?

Example: github.com/tmux/tmux/issues/428
Example: lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
Example: lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-September/000391.html
Example: 0pointer.net/blog/projects/why.html (Note the great comparison tables which absolutely aren't cherry picked and and lacking candidates for comparison.)
There are more examples if you want me to find them for you. I think lennart's blog is a great source. Then there are the mailing lists and the bug tracker. Lots of examples of brain damaged reasoning, "gentle pushing," literal marketing material and other nonsense.

Hilarious.

Attached: 7559049.jpg (633x758, 68K)

>GNOME
gnome is just there as an example.
>systemd slows down everything
no you fucking idiot. I said that systemd causes SBCs to lose performance.
That's a fundamental issue with systemd because it causes the cpu to do extra context switching. If your CPU is not beefy enough, in will take a performance hit.
unlike other simpler and leaner init systems, systemd's only advantage is startup. That's it, you get 2 seconds faster in a procedure that you do once per day or week or month.
That's the myth about systemd being "faster".
I stand by my 1st insult towards you, you are uneducated and wasting my time.

>answers all posts on a mongolian forum himself
>somehow him wasting time is other people's fault

Attached: shrek.jpg (300x460, 19K)

>Example: github.com/tmux/tmux/issues/428
He asked the tmux dev to make it so tmux play well with systemd, he was refused, what's the big deal?
>Example: lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
Upstream drops support for your system? Happens all the time, what's the big deal?
>Example: lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2010-September/000391.html
Users complain that things aren't working because of their distro's customization? Why didn't they bring it up to their distro?
>Example: 0pointer.net/blog/projects/why.html (Note the great comparison tables which absolutely aren't cherry picked and and lacking candidates for comparison.)
I've seen the comparison table over at the Debian wiki, they actually put something like, is the upstream devs a bunch of faggot? OpenRC: no, systemd: yes.

>I said that systemd causes SBCs to lose performance
Where's your goddamn proof? You can't just make a claim and then turn tail when someone asks for proof, how could be this retarded? Did your parents drop you as a kid?

>because it causes the cpu to do extra context switching.
Couple of things:
1. Prove it needs more context switches, and that the overhead is higher than all the forking shells to run bash scripts it prevents.
2. Even if you manage to do #1 (doubt it), this would a problem with Linux sucking at IPC, not systemd. A context switch takes a couple hundred nanoseconds on seL4. It typically takes multiple microseconds on Linux. Because, let's face it, Linux sucks.

Attached: 1523985142155.png (150x167, 11K)

>He asked the tmux dev to make it so tmux play well with systemd, he was refused, what's the big deal?
You don't see the problem with a system management program having the balls to require ecosystem wide changes for how things are done just becuase gnome sessions are buggy?
Introducing dependencies causes no problem when you're on gentoo but recompiling packages on a binary distro is a PITA. This is brain damaged design.
>Upstream drops support for your system? Happens all the time, what's the big deal?
More like
>Upstream gets hijacked by an idiot who then threatens to break working setups due to his own pursuit of laziness and tight coupling and then brags to everyone about it.
What delusional world do you live in?
>Users complain that things aren't working because of their distro's customization? Why didn't they bring it up to their distro?
So you missed the bit where Lennart said it was his intentions to pressure everyone to do things the same way?
I've seen the comparison table over at the >Debian wiki, they actually put something like, is the upstream devs a bunch of faggot? OpenRC: no, systemd: yes.
OpenRC gets the bullet too.
Letting daemons run wild with double fork is the past and supervisors which encourage this behaviour suck balls.
>bash
I'm not the person you're replying to but please stop living in the delusional world where bash is the only thing in which a script can be ran and where things like execline don't exist.

>but please stop living in the delusional world
You needn't explain to me that a bunch of scripts that fork more shells and launch more scripts in cascade is neither efficient nor better than systemd.

systemd isn't ideal, but it sure is leaps and bounds better than sysvinit, bsdinit, openrc, runit and upstart.
Potentially better init systems include nosh and that's about it really.