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.
It goes against all principles of using Linux since it essentially makes it closed source because it's 2 million lines of unaudited code that keeps on growing. I'd rather have the functionality of a free closed source like macOS and its a powerhouse being close to Unix. Now we all know alphabet agencies had their hands in developing system d so security is out the window. So the whole point of using Linux is to know about everything under the hood which you end up having no clue anymore because of system d. So why in the world would anybody use systemd distros when it functions as a closed source os. You're way better with the functionality of a closed source os
Alexander King
>do one thing and do it well
Ian Richardson
why does he look like a lesbian
Hunter Wood
Exactly. It has many useful features that i use, like systemd-nspawn or bootctl
Desktop environments also go against the unix philosophy.
Colton Johnson
>I'd rather use code that I could never see vs code that I can if I wanted to
I do agree, but this sort of thinking is why it never was the year of the Linux Desktop.
I'm with OP in that Systemd as a whole makes more sense. Think of System d a management tool that lets other things do one thing and do them well. As OSes get more complex, it's near impossible to keep track of shit.
Daniel Peterson
>blank excuse for featureless software on linux >File_Picker_meme.jpg
Carter Jackson
>Desktop environments also go against the unix philosophy. Shhhh, don't tell it to blind sperg haters. It's only bad if the kool kids (fellow neet neckbeards) hate it.
Henry Richardson
>As OSes get more complex, it's near impossible to keep track of shit. So the solution is to make software that is equally complex and hard to keep track of shit?
Matthew Anderson
Alright genius, how would you do it? How would you write a complex and extensible, yet still manageable, init system? I'm not saying that Systemd is perfect; all I'm saying is that it has some really good ideas behind it, especially for people that need to maintain and secure systems that run hundreds of processes.
And no, I'm not talking about the shit in the average user's basement server rack. I'm talking about real, enterprise-level systems.
>How would you write a complex and extensible, yet still manageable, init system? Moving goalposts. The whole point of my post is that SystemD is an init system and a whole host of other things, which goes directly against the unix philosophy.
I wouldn't write such a complex software in the first fucking place
Jonathan Sullivan
See
Aiden Sanchez
Joke's on you. I use Windows on my desktop. I'm not neckbeard enough to have a Loonix desktop You still have not come up with a counterargument
You don't even use Linux and you're bothering to have an opinion on this subject? Systemd is more than an init system because it needs to be in order to do what it does so well.
You say that you wouldn't write such complex software, but how can you solve fundamentally-flawed design problems by throwing more and more programs at it? What's worse: ten programs that step on each other's toes to get the job of running your machine done, or one program that uses a single codebase and gives you more features at the expense of being more centralized? The truth of the matter is that strict adherence to the UNIX philosophy wasn't solving problems that people were having. Read this shit 0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
Also, to directly answer your question, the complexity is shifted from the user to the developers. That means I can spend more time getting work done rather than managing dependencies
Also, check out Lunduke's history of Linux video and engage in a little thought experiment with me. Do you see any parallels with this whole Systemd thing?
>You don't even use Linux and you're bothering to have an opinion on this subject? I use Linux on my servers. Since 2006. I'm just not stupid enough to use it on a desktop
> one program that uses a single codebase and gives you more features at the expense of being more centralized? More lines of code, so also more bugs. Potentially compromising the whole system. And SystemD pretty much wants to manage everything, one such flaw being exploited means your whole system will be owned.
>Also, to directly answer your question, the complexity is shifted from the user to the developers. That means I can spend more time getting work done rather than managing dependencies You don't need a whole softwaresuite all-in-one to manage dependecies. Previous systems worked and still work fine.
Sebastian Garcia
>I use Linux on my servers. Since 2006. I'm just not stupid enough to use it on a desktop 2006 Linux is very different from Linux today. Back in 2006, I wouldn't have dared to use Linux on my desktop either. However, systemd was the answer to improving Linux on the desktop. Also, a home server wasn't what I was talking about. In the enterprise server space, Systemd solves many issues that simply don't exist at the scale of a home server setup.
>More lines of code, so also more bugs. Potentially compromising the whole system. And SystemD pretty much wants to manage everything, one such flaw being exploited means your whole system will be owned. This is the primary reason why people don't like Systemd and I understand and agree with this to an extent. In a lot of ways systemd is more secure. Code is only secure if it gets continual updates. Standardized code is much better than an implementation-specific approach (looking at you SysV init). In addition, this is really a double-edged sword: malicious code that would compromise your system is easier to patch under something like systemd, which has more control over the system. Otherwise, you'd need to use more programs or script files to patch your system, thus creating even more holes down the line that would need to be maintained.
Still, if this is such an issue for you, why do you even use Windows? It suffers from the exact same problem, only it's worse; we can't see the source code, so we have to trust that the developers are doing the right thing.
>You don't need a whole softwaresuite all-in-one to manage dependecies. Previous systems worked and still work fine. But that was the problem. They worked "fine" enough, but were still a pain for developers to maintain and develop new software for changing hardware. Developers and maintainers love systemd for that reason.
Nicholas Kelly
> I don't know how to read Did you read literally the first line in the OP? We are not talking about an initial system.
Except OP is wrong and systemd IS an init system + everything else it is. You can't talk about systemd without talking about init systems, since being an init system is what lets systemd do everything it does.
Honestly I like to entertain those theories, but the dude hasn't done anything even remotely dangerous enough to deserve it. I bet he just got bored/disenfranchised and stopped interacting with the devs.
Lincoln Scott
Don't really need Xtraeme or whoever. He wrote xbps and it's mostly mature and has other contributors, iirc. Once the current maintainers get all the accesses they need, it's business as usual.
Tell me why every single fucking time I read this, all I see is "Hello. Welcome to Linux Bloatware."
Adam Garcia
Daily reminder that Stallman supports systemd because it's free software. Daily reminder that systemd could be forked if it weren't already good enough.
Owen Miller
>Lunduke jesus christ what an insufferable presenter, dont ever link anything from this person again
Michael Barnes
because xe takes SystemD(ildo) in xis boipussy daily from xis dom.
Luis Butler
I thought he was a pretty good presenter. He also says some pretty educational stuff.
Seems like an honest, down to earth guy to me :(
Landon Reyes
but don't tell that to neckbeards, who are only talk. a previous programming challenge thread showed how shit Jow Forums is at programming. actual freetards like stallman can recognize it's free software and not bitch about it. if it's so shit, fork it. if you can't do that, don't complain about what those who can do for you.
Nicholas Scott
Neckbeards literally don't use DE's though, they use window managers.
Levi Harris
Why would anyone even attempt to fork that giant pile of code. runit and OpenRC already exist.
Mason Mitchell
True, but they never call them out for "breaking the Unix philosophy". I use i3 myself btw.
Zachary Wood
>the gnu part is merly about joking >still calls the whole system linux fuck lunduke
Ayden Turner
>It goes against all principles of using Linux since it essentially makes it closed source because it's 2 million lines of unaudited code that keeps on growing Why do you use Linux at all then, since the kernel has 10m lines of code?
Wyatt Barnes
>you you you What's up with this stupid non-argument?
Charles Anderson
The rio desktop environment for Plan 9 doesn't go against the unix philosophy.
Noah Moore
I do biggest and second biggest brains on Jow Forums lol
Benjamin Clark
bootctl is buggy. It can't handle multiple Efi partitions without filling up the boot entries in uefi Just use GRUB
Jose Gonzalez
It is nice as a fallback option. I could't get grub to run from arch iso, so i installed this, booted and installed grub
