Why systemd is so hated? What other similar softwares do better than it?

Attached: nt.jpg (640x640, 34K)

because my init system doesn't need to resolve dns

It is even trying to do the fstab's job. Several nfs options are not usable just because automatically created systemd services cannot handle them properly. Why it trying to cover so much instead of fixing existing issues?
inb4: it's ot an issues :-----DD

I used to work as tech support at my upper secondary school (gymnasium for germanics or high school for americuts). Every student gets their own MBA 13" and nearly everyone that had a problem with their computer had that shit installed. It seemed like a legit program at first. Something like CCleaner for Windows. It actually has some functions that make sense, such as helping you free up space, change file extension association or disable startup programs. We tried installing it on a freshly reinstalled computer and there was live chat thing that would let us speak to an actual person that told us that the machine had viruses on it. They were extremely insistent, even after we told them that we knew they were making shit up as it was installed only minutes ago. It seems that they're told to never relent, as to not expose what they are and to make it harder to sue them. You can waste their time and call them niggers but they'll keep talking to you until you pay them.

Attached: 1411498433768.jpg (3264x2448, 1.76M)

It's called systemd.
Its name literally says that it is the entire system.
Other than packaging, there's literally no more room for Linux distributions to compete if they adopt systemd.
They will adopt systemd because of GNOME.

because it's a fucking mess and makes zero attempt to fit in well with the more thoughtfully designed system that surrounds it

if you don't like the unix philosophy why are you using linus torvalds's x86 implementation of unix?

>if you don't like the unix philosophy why are you using linus torvalds's x86 implementation of unix?
He isn't. He is using the GNU project's free implementation of Unix, known as GNU's Not Unix. The GNU project simply added Linus' kernel to their project after he licensed it under the GPL in the summer of 93.

gnu's an implementation of unix too. one bloated with many tumors, but an implementation of unix nonetheless.

anyway a linux user is not necessarily using a gnuserland

> What other similar softwares do better than it?
If you are looking for a sane init system try runit.
void linux uses it as the default init system.

Still looking for a distro using sinit.

>gnu's an implementation of unix too.
That is what I said.
>anyway a linux user is not necessarily using a gnuserland
And? I'm aware that Google used Linux in Android. But I am referring to the free implementation of Unix completed by the GNU project in the summer of 93.

if one hates the unix philosophy, or sees no appeal in it, why is one using a unix implementation? it's not for compatibility with the majority of consumer software, that's for sure.

Reminder that making a "Unix-like" system was _never_ the goal of the GNU project. The goal has always been to produce a complete, free-as-in-freedom operating system and spread free software.
Stallman decided to make it functionally similar to Unix just to make it easier for people to switch, as Unix was popular at the time. It's just a means to a much broader, more ambitious goal.
BSDfags and cat-v-like cults can't understand this, and instead unironically believe everyone is somehow in a race to make the most Unix-like system possible, which is not only childish and futile, but also missing the point.
Not to mention that Unix was trash in the first place.

Attached: yande.re 400263 sample baffu cleavage feet sweater.jpg (1500x1062, 273K)

so what do you want?

Systemd is bad, but so is the Unix philosophy. Let's not kid ourselves.
>if you don't like the unix philosophy why are you using linus torvalds's x86 implementation of unix?
There is very little that is "Unix-like" about Linux, and that's a good thing. And yes, I'm referring to the kernel, because that's what Linux is.

>if one hates the unix philosophy, or sees no appeal in it, why is one using a unix implementation?
Because Unix was a functional and popular operating system at the time. It needed a massive re-write, as evidenced by the swift adoption of the GNU project's clone software in Unix environments, but it was a good base to spread free software. If this were based purely on personal preference rms would have based the GNU project purely on Lisp. Hence why Emacs works the way it does.
Correct. GNU users talking about the Unix philosophy is asinine for this reason.

Because it's still the least bad choice for many tasks.
Reminder, you can use a certain piece of software and still recognize its flaws. You don't have to worship what you use.

youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

Luke Smith already destroyed this aussie scumbag.

how is the unix philosophy bad and what's the best alternative approach to program design?

>There is very little that is "Unix-like" about Linux
yeah it magically becomes "not unix-like" simply because it added a thousand system calls, despite having the same process model and so forth. i suppose freebsd is "not unix like" because it has jails.

>It needed a massive re-write, as evidenced by the swift adoption of the GNU project's clone software in Unix environments
revisionists at it again. just like linux (and_ because of_ linux) it was in the right place at the right time. the legal hammer was coming down on bsd and at&t unix so there needed to be an alternative. enter ganoo/linux.

I don't know who he is, but looking at the google search results, i get the feeling that i don't even need to look at a single of his video of his to get an idea what he's about

Attached: Capture2.png (681x355, 165K)

>revisionists at it again. just like linux (and_ because of_ linux) it was in the right place at the right time. the legal hammer was coming down on bsd and at&t unix so there needed to be an alternative. enter ganoo/linux.
Are you confused? The GNU project began a decade before Linux. GNU software quickly replaced their Unix equivalents because of how much more efficient they were. This isn't disputed.

One million lines of unaudited Kraut code.

>GNU software quickly replaced their Unix equivalents
not until linux rose to prominence. gnu software rose in tandem with linux. this isn't disputed.

>how much more efficient they were
gnu software has always had a reputation for bloat. they're intended to be free, not fast, not small, not beautiful.

>This isn't disputed.
i dispute it.

>other similar software
Nobody needs anything similar to systemd.

>not until linux rose to prominence
No, that is wrong. GNU software was being used on Unix systems for almost a decade before Linux.
>gnu software has always had a reputation for bloat.
That is just false. You don't know anything about the software it succeeded in the 80s.

I don't understand why redhat fags are still so angry. You won. Every aspect of the Unix "philosophy" is dead. No one writes filters anymore, no one writes synthetic file servers, no one sticks to their program's remit, every library has hundreds of functions and a manual you could crush a hippo with, most standards are so huge and longwinded and poorly devised by committee that they're impossible to understand, every program is in perpetual development because the sheer size of the code requires constant churn, and every program reinvents half its functionality that it shares in common with every other program because generalization is unheard of except in the context of C++ templates. You won and the world is reshaped in your image. Stop being angry, stop getting apoplectic when some pathetic fag bleats on about "simplicity" or "elegance" or Unix or whatever.

Attached: lennartware.png (313x209, 8K)

>redhat fags
GNU predates Redhat by over a decade.

>GNU software was being used on Unix systems
yes indeed, they had an installation count that was nonzero.

>That is just false.
haha fuck off. emacs ring a bell? and gnu took a bloated thing (unix) and made it much more bloated.

>You don't know anything about the software it succeeded in the 80s.
in the 80s it was succeeding only BSD, which was, and still is in its various incarnations today, nowhere near as bloated as GNU.

You'll notice that systemd and the rest of the lovely freedesktop.org software are redhat things.

This just doesn't work. You clearly can only think in modern terms. Nu-Jow Forums zoomers were a mistake.

Emacs isn't bloated. If you think it is, define "bloat" first.

Learn history, Uriel.

Attached: symbolics2.jpg (1024x768, 167K)

>gnuserland
holy fucking words bro thats the new word that i'm gonna use bro gnuserland. sounds like it's right next to cuckistan.

i never got a response. what's the best alternative approach to program design? i only want to experiment.

BSD master-race identified

what's the best alternative approach to program design?

As for init systems, GNU Shepherd sounds based.

Does systemd have any Javascript in it yet?

I know a guy who wrote a thesis on this basically. Basically:

- UNIX was a nice and simple engineering, that over time was twisted into doing things it was never designed to do.

- People confuse "minimal" with "perfect" and make all kinds of silly work-arounds to justify bad ideas

so you're saying the best alternative to the approach of unix program design is... the plan 9 approach to program design?

The program design paradigm chosen should be one that most closely resembles the reality the data model is trying to emulate. I know that sounds verbose. but thats as terse as i can explain the creative process.

>programs are emulations of realities
pardon?

Do you have your answer OP?
As you can see by all the replies in this thread, your answer is autism.

systemd is a giant blob of bullshit junk code that has no real practical purpose beyond making Red Hat the proprietor of the ecosystem and making your system shittier.
There is literally no real advantage it offers over sysv init even.
All it does is it reimplements stuff that doesn't need to be reimplemented (in a metric fuckton of garbage spaghetti code that doesn't actually add any useful features), consumes existing projects and bundles it all into a single colossal monolithic turdlog.
Fractionally faster boot times don't mean shit and even if they did, look, there's runit and now there's OpenRC.
systemd is literally the definition of bloatware.
It's huge, it doesn't actually do anything useful compared to alternatives and if I wanted a layer of crapware in between the kernel and the user turning my operating system into a fecal black box, I'd use Microsoft Windows.
Just being garbage is one thing, and if that's all there was to it, I wouldn't give a single fuck about it, but the fact of the matter is that it acts like literal cancer, consuming vital system utilities and making more and more software depend on it (by the power of Red Hat) until it finally becomes unavoidable (which is in fact the end goal).
Figuratively speaking, it's akin to a giant tentacle monster slowly extending it's tentacles and closing in to rape you and even though it hopefully never will, it still makes people uncomfortable enough to be vocal about it.

Attached: 1555756793203.png (500x567, 359K)

it's like pulseaudio, it was released 5 years before it was ready for production.
other than that, it's not that bad if you run rhel/centos, it's just debian that does a half assed job shipping unit files

that's not true, it provides rate limiting with less overhead than OpenVZ and unlike OpenVZ it has been upstreamed.

why should i care?

I'm not seeing a lot of actual arguments... I have a few of my own for openrc VS systemd. But I don't particulately 'hate' systemd, I just.. don't want to use it.
>openrc is faster
At least...It is for me. I skimmed off a few seconds in comparison. It only takes 3 seconds to start up everything for openrc, but it was taking about 10 seconds for systemd. This could be due to systemd starting things that maybe I didn't know about, but for all intents and purposes: It's been faster for me.
>systemd has it's own logging system
Which is great, except that I don't want my init system to log or select my logging system. I like metalog and only want to use metalog. I'm sure there is a way to edit this, but I don't need that extra journald + whatever logging systems I end up using.
>openrc is stable
systemd is...well, it's not. Everytime a bug gets brought up, poettering shits all over whoever reports the bug and refuses to fix the bug. I'm not saying this because "lulz fuck poeterring" but he really does make it difficult to want to use something that could break and no one care.
>openrc does the only thing I want it to do
systemd has a lot of functionality that I just simply do not need on my computer. If I want all the bells and whistles of systemd, I'd simply write small scripts and openrc would run them. I'm trying to not use the word "bloat" but for once, it might actually be used properly here.. I want modularity in most of my things, when possible.

stupid question here, shouldn't be possible to actually "debloat" it by just going back to only being an init system?
Killing everything else that isn't?

It's "possible" in the sense that systemd lets you turn off parts of it
It's not in the sense that it will decide "Nevermind fuck you" and turn it all right the fuck back on without your permission. networkd is particularly bad about this, if you have to turn it off to use something like wpa_supplicant because networkd is hot dogshit sometimes it just comes back alive and overrides all your settings, killing your network.

A toxicologist video goes into depth about why it's so controversial. As for alternatives I don't know. I've used systemdicks distros all my life.

youtube.com/watch?v=GNUGjFzenq4

Attached: pottering.png (1280x2084, 511K)

Attached: 1557565157844.jpg (864x576, 147K)

Hahahaa, the loser who made this must be angry as fuck, the butthurt is palpable

How so?
>Systemd is hated because larping faggots meme its hatred while kids on this board follow suit.
I see where you're coming from, but
>>muh unix philosophy
Is the Unix philosophy not a good attitude towards developing software?
Can you give some examples?

>Is the Unix philosophy not a good attitude towards developing software?
It may be three decades ago but nowadays we expect our computers to do sophisticated things that are impossible to achieve by gluing simple programs together.

It turns out no one has any other solutions to all of those other things though, which is why practical distros started using systemd while the rest just wrung their hands about "muh one job".

If you ever had to write C without any fancy libraries, you'd understand why creating pipelines of utilities in the shell really took off.

Now that we have languages like Python, pipelines are much less necessary.

saying systemd violates the unix philosophy is a lie perpetuated by the catv-v cultists, systemd is a suite of programs that does a variety of things but they're all nicely separated into programs that does one thing and do it well e.g. networkd, resolvd, timesyncd etc.