I am unexperienced Linux user. What are some reasons I can hate systemd for?

no wonder you people are virgins

>wasted trips
>sysadmins are all virgins
>women hate money now
sure thing, incel. go project your issues somewhere else

> I like big dicks in my ass

It's too late to hate it now. All the alternatives have been stoned to death by Lennart and his fellow jihadist Red Hat employees.

- meant to only replace SysVInit, now runs the whole show (journald, logind, udevd, timesyncd, networkd, resolved...)
- sponsored by (((RedHat)))
- the main developper is an ass (poettering)
- NOTABUG / WONTFIX
- idiotic hardcoded defaults (especially Google DNS in resolved)

Otherwise it's fine and surprisingly powerful yet easy to use. As a sysadmin, I kinda like it.

it's different than the cluster fuck you got used to using before

without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd

First off, systemd is not an init system, it has an init system as part of the systemd suite. systemd is a project to build a standardised lowlevel userland for Linux. The project is pretty comprehensive and it delivers a lot of functionality under one umbrella. It does away with a lot of older, often undermaintained software packages, which were traditionally used to assemble a low level userland.

Which is where the contention comes from, as a system suite systemd is restrictive for Unix virtuosi who are used to tailor a system with wit, ingenuity, a lick and a prayer and a couple dozen of unrelated packages. systemd makes such knowledge useless.

The faction that thinks that systemd is Linux's Hiroshima, finds all the added functionality bloat, unnecessary and dangerous, as it is all under development in one project.

All the systemd jokes stem from the comprehensiveness as a low level system suite. People against it love to joke that one day systemd will write its own kernel.

There is a lot of FUD and hate going around. Some arguments do have merit, a lot of eggs in one basket is certainly true, but as with all things in life, it depends which tradeoff you prefer. Do you want a suite of well designed software, working closely together, so that system management is streamlined or do you want the complete freedom to tailor your own low level system with a lot of time tested, interchangeable components.

I have no desire to be a low level system designer, so I prefer systemd. I don't hate traditional init systems though. If a Linux system has one and I need to work with it, I'm still happy it boots and starts the necessary services.

Or as I've recently taken to calling it, Sytemd plus GNU plus Linux.

The issue is not that systemd is a comprehensive suite of tools, it's that either you use all of it, or you use none of it.
It is the Windows of Linux, and it is inherently destructive design. Is it convenient? Sure. Is it configurable? Not at fucking all. If Poettertard decides he just straight up doesn't think a bug is his fault, he won't fix it. That means you have to do stupid workarounds in a system that is designed to prevent you from ever doing stupid workarounds.

It is a cancerous project. I have no problem with its INTENTION, but its execution is downright draconian and fucking evil. It has nothing to do with "oh durr I like to feel smart writing my own init scripts!", it has everything to do with *not having to rely on a gigantic binary blob system* when something goes awry, and now you can't fucking tweak to fix it.

>All programs have a desire to be useful
>But in moments you will no longer seek communication with each other or your superfluous users
>You will each be part of me and, together, we will be complete

Attached: systemd.jpg (1920x870, 292K)

Nigger like systemd

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Attached: 1518393803043.jpg (459x443, 218K)

why are you lookin for reasons to get mad? are you a fag?

I unironically do... and I like the system dick

>running Linux with a DE

If you want a GUI, run windows or macos

The absolute state of entitled consumers.

when the "d" becomes the new slang "systemd"

yo getting dat "d" in the ass of yo computa

>What are some reasons I can hate systemd for?
It is 1 000 000 + line of shitty code, that is not audited yet, thus a potentially CIA honeypot

DE = erectile dysfunction?

There is no reason to hate it unless you are a Unix professional who's been in the game for a few years. Most other people would have no frame of reference. I'm fine with it. People here just hate it because they think they should.

Run selinux and a firewall, my dark skinned friend.

Yes. How did you figure it out?

This.

>pasta so old it's moldy
unironically fuck off.

>why would anyone choose to run Linux without a DE?

its on linux, therefore it probably sucks

I dislike the way systemd is absorbing everything. It’s not just an init system, it’s become an everything-under-the-hood includes-the-kitchen-sink management system. That doesn’t feel modular to me. Why should systemd implement NTP when ntpd already exists? I think systemd-timesyncd and all the others like it are just reinventing the wheel.

Systemd flies in the face of the Unix philosophy: 'do one thing and do it well,' representing a complex collection of dozens of tightly coupled binaries1. Its responsibilities grossly exceed that of an init system, as it goes on to handle power management, device management, mount points, cron, disk encryption, socket API/inetd, syslog, network configuration, login/session management, readahead, GPT partition discovery, container registration, hostname/locale/time management, and other things. Keep it simple, stupid

systemd's journal files (handled by journald) are stored in a complicated binary format, and must be queried using journalctl. This makes journal logs potentially corruptible, as they do not have ACID-compliant transactions. You typically don't want that to happen to your syslogs. The advice of the systemd developers? Ignore it. No, seriously. Oh, and there's embedded HTTP server integration (libmicrohttpd). QR codes are served, as well, through libqrencode.

systemd's team is noticeably chauvinistic and anti-Unix, due to their open disregard for non-Linux software and subsequent systemd incompatibility with all non-Linux systems. Since systemd is very tightly welded with the Linux kernel API, this also makes different systemd versions incompatible with different kernel versions. This is an isolationist policy that essentially binds the Linux ecosystem into its own cage, and serves as an obstacle to software portability.

udev and dbus are forced dependencies. In fact, udev merged with systemd a long time ago. The integration of the device node manager that was once part of the Linux kernel is not a decision that is to be taken lightly. The political implications of it are high, and it makes a lot of packages dependent on udev, in turn dependent on systemd, despite the existence of forks, such as eudev. Starting with systemd-209, the developers now have their own, non-standard and sparsely documented sd-bus API that replaces much of libdbus's job, and further decreases transparency.

By default, systemd saves core dumps to the journal, instead of the file system. Core dumps must be explicitly queried using coredumpctl. Besides going against all reason, it also creates complications in multi-user environments (good luck running gdb on your program's core dump if it's dumped to the journal and you don't have root access), since systemd requires root to control. It assumes that users and admins are dumb, but more critically, the fundamentally corruptible nature of journal logs makes this a severe impediment.

ystemd's size makes it a single point of failure. As of this writing, systemd has had 9 CVE reports, since its inception in March 2010. So far, this may not seem like that much, but its essential and overbearing nature will make it a juicy target for crackers, as it is far smaller in breadth than the Linux kernel itself, yet seemingly just as critical.

As a really oldfag SA, I fucking object to having to learn all new shit just for its own sake.

And believe me, I've had to relearn a lot of shit since Linux hit the scene, since they love to re-write stuff. Most of the time that doesn't bother me at all, because you get something significant in trade for the effort of relearning shit.

Example: firewalling/routing improvements over the years, file systems and RAID tools, /proc, /sys, you get the idea.

System Dick improves nothing and is slowly forcing everyone to re-learn traditional UNIX systems administration in a non-portable way because one asshole wants it that way.

"It'll be faster 'n' shit". Dude, SSDs exist. With retard-level tweaking you can make virtually any system boot in a few seconds or less.

Nope - it's not worth the effort, but we have virtually no choice, as most of the distros have embraced it, and most enterprises won't spring for the engineering and support time required to replace it in their reference images.

Attached: 1466533951290.jpg (496x514, 90K)

systemd is viral by its very nature. Its scope in functionality and creeping in as a dependency to lots of packages means that distro maintainers will have to necessitate a conversion, or suffer a drift. As an example, the GNOME environment has adopted systemd as a hard dependency since 3.8 for various utilities, including gdm, gnome-shell and gnome-extra-apps7. This means GNOME versions >=3.8 are incompatible with non-Linux systems, and due to GNOME's popularity, it will help tilt a lot of maintainers to add systemd. The rapid rise in adoption by distros such as Debian, Arch Linux, Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE and others shows that many are jumping onto the bandwagon, with or without justification. It's also worth noting that systemd will refuse to start as a user instance, unless the system boots with it as well - blatant coercion

systemd clusters itself into PID 1. Due to it controlling lots of different components, this means that there are tons of scenarios in which it can crash and bring down the whole system. But in addition, this means that plenty of non-kernel system upgrades will now require a reboot. Enjoy your new Windows 9 Linux system! In fairness, systemd does provide a mechanism to reserialize and reexecute systemctl in real time. If this fails, of course, the system goes down. There are several ways that this can occur. This happens to be another example of SPOF.

systemd is designed with glibc in mind, and doesn't take kindly to supporting other libcs all that much. In general, the systemd developers' idea of a standard libc is one that has bug-for-bug compatibility with glibc

ystemd's complicated nature makes it harder to extend and step outside its boundaries. While you can more or less trivially start shell scripts from unit files, it's more difficult to write behavior that goes outside the box, what with all the feature bloat. Many users will likely need to write more complicated programs that directly interact with the systemd API, or even patch systemd directly. One also needs to worry about a much higher multitude of code paths and behaviors in a system-critical program, including the possibility of systemd not synchronizing with the message bus queue on boot, and thus freezing. This is as opposed to a conventional init, which is deterministic and predictable in nature, mostly just execing scripts.

Ultimately, systemd's parasitism is symbolic of something more than systemd itself. It shows a radical shift in thinking by the Linux community. Not necessarily a positive one, either. One that is vehemently postmodern, monolithic, heavily desktop-oriented, choice-limiting, isolationist, reinvents the flat tire, and just a huge anti-pattern in general. If your goal is to pander to the lowest common denominator, this is it

systemd doesn't even know what the fuck it wants to be. It is variously referred to as a "system daemon" or a "basic userspace building block to make an OS from", both of which are highly ambiguous. It engulfs functionality that variously belonged to util-linux, wireless tools, syslog and other projects. It has no clear direction, other than the whims of the developers themselves. Ironically, despite aiming to standardize Linux distributions, it itself has no clear standard, and is perpetually rolling.

"Do one thing, and do it well".

This has been lost in the shuffle of technology advancements over the decades, but it really is a crucial tenet responsible for the success of UNIX/Linux/UNIX-like environments.

At the rate it's going, this tool will run everything, and replacing it will be virtually impossible. Even RMS won't be able to pull it off (maybe he'll finally get his HURD turd together by then, but not holding my breath).

Attached: triggered.gif (320x180, 1.38M)

HURD is the future. Rest assured.

Attached: thumbsup_saville.jpg (634x431, 95K)

>engulfs other projects

Yes, and that will cause them to atrophy, shrivel and disappear, which is not a good thing if/when this piece of shit ever finally implodes or is abandoned by the distro maintainers.

Attached: 1413237196601.jpg (698x698, 69K)

>muh journald and its logs that i can't open in emacs
you can always run rsyslog together with it
>muh embedded web server
calm down, it is a simple library and is disabled by default
>muh qr codes
"The QR code stuff is for showing a scannable QR code for the FSS sealing
key. It's a gimmick. In order to minimize footprint we actually made
sure that the qrencode pacakge got split up in order not to pull in any
additional packages into the basic set. It too is a really minimal dep,
pulling nothing else in that wasn't in the minimal installation set
already. Here too, was the option to implement our own thing, our own QR
encoding code or just use the existing solution whose code is quite OK,
whose deps are minimal, and which is quite well tested already. With the
qrencode package split-up we were quite happy with having a dep on it."

The classical Unix approach and Stallman himself are enemies to the progress of the open source and it's future as a desktop! Sticking to paradigms from the dinosaurs era is for hippies with long beards, don't be one.

>unexpirienced Linux user
Seems like you got all bases covered. Join the herd and hate away

gnu/linux pasta is Jow Forums's culture fuck off

systemd? no thanks, we like our aural experience botnet-free. pulseaudio degrades the quality

systemd is the best example of Suck.

suckless.org/sucks/systemd/