When did you grow up and realize systemd isn't bad at all?

init toddlers btfo

When it gave me time to go get a cup of coffee because I booted with my storage hdd disconnected.
Certainly the working man's init system.

that means steve jobs invented systemd/linux

fucking retarded
unlike the zoomers that got into GNU/Linux when systemd started coming stock, I had to jump ship when it started eating all the software that I had learned and got used to. why the fuck, would you want software that gets you to install dependencies that you dont want? if you wanted the same result and packages and consistency for a desktop every single time, why not install windows?

Because windows is shit. Kill yourself

no
I didn't say I used windows, that's what's known as a devils advocate. I'm saying that you are no better than wanting a windows system, if you were not happy that a distro could provide you with the tools and means to get a system built exactly how you wanted, and you also needed a further collection of packages that roots itself into said OS you zoomer twat. there is no need for systemd. it's wintoddler trash for people that want linux brand but resent linux

I didn't say you used windows you stupid cunt
>i-it roots itself into the OS
you literally don't even know why you hate it. Try to fall for less memes in your life.

watch your little zoomer dicklicker, I know exactly why I hate it. try doing custom shit with pamd and watch systemd get in the way. try getting bleeding edge packages that depend on it to run well with the shim. it's so shitty using distros that port the trash without compiling everything yourself, and even then, it's a nightmare

>shim
Why are you whining about systemd because an unrelated, dead project doesn't work well for you? Are all devuan basedboys this retarded?

this is in debian
you should stop sweetie you are making yourself look bad

By the way, you sounded just like a wintoddler when you complained about having to relearn things that systemd replaced

they aren't replaced, they are still packages, still software, but it is annoying to have them depreciated in distros that are not aligned with redhat because freedesktop.
i don't really care how i "sound". the only thing that matters is telling people that try to prop up the bloated abortion that systemd has become, that once upon a time you could actually do more with an OS than have a server in a virtual environment or a desktop

Newfag to systemd here, whats so bad about systemd exactly? All i see are people just saying its bloated and that its bad, but never why

When I realized systemd was a service manager and init was just another service.

probably because it's easy to meme but hard to put into words. objective design is trying to get all the packages, all the individual programs to fit one function and compliment each other. when you have everything mixed into one soup, you can't appreciate or change every single aspect, because they all depend on one thing. thats why they call it bloated. because all of a sudden, I need my process one for my login daemon, etc etc

There are alternatives like runit and openrc, why not just use those?

People are scared of systemd because it is more complex than the shell scripts it replaces. But it works a lot more reliably. It restarts services automatically if they fail, which is great for unattended servers where you might not notice if e.g. sshguard crashes and leaves you unprotected. It handles startup and shutdown more reliably, starting services in the correct order for them to work properly, and not shutting down services until they finish starting up.

Doing things like this correctly takes more logic than sysvinit, which just fired off start and stop commands. Also, systemd is written in C, which needs more code than shell scripts to get the same things done.

While it isn't perfect, the real reason it generates so much flak is because the sore losers behind devuan lost in the vote deciding debian's default init, years later they're still seething at the mere mention of systemd, must suck living life getting triggered over a free system service manager

>Also, systemd is written in C, which needs more code than shell scripts to get the same things done.
You do realize that by calling command line utilities from a script you're actually executing the code that makes up said utilities, jesus fuck why is this place so fucking retarded

i do, but it's difficult to manage packages and keep everything running nice unless you give in. and in the working world you cant just use openrc, systemd can't be avoided anymore. if you were an engineer, and you wanted to make a machine out of parts, in the past it would have been a par, a price limit and a BOM, bill of materials, and you'd go along in your drafting cooking up your baby, and so on. but then someone comes along and told you that you have to use the exact same parts for every machine, that there was much less room for creativity, you might be upset but ok whatever its what they want. Pretty soon all the wires and transformers of the future machines are just the ones that fit these parts best until you realize that you aren't making new products anymore you are just shitting out the same thing with slicker paint each time.

CIA can't get backdoor into Linux kernel. Strong-arms Redhat into placing backdoor into SystemD. Pays shills to insert SystemD into all non-meme distros. Everything is fucked

these people, if not the same person, are stupid
is sane

This is tinfoil hat nonsense. Systemd is open source. If there is a backdoor, why can't any of the haters find it? The burden of proof is on them.

>more FUD about systemd's widespread adoption without any real reason why it's bad other than because it's systemd
you guys are in desperate need of a new MO

there's no FUD, being constrained into bad design is annoying, thats a real reason

im not that guy but i'd say the poor design and lack of interest in fixing the bugs in the upstream is in itself, a backdoor

>being constrained into bad design
>more "systemd bad" nonsense
lmao

>the poor design and lack of interest in fixing the bugs in the upstream is in itself, a backdoor
even if what you said were true that's not really what backdoor means you dumb cunt

if you can't understand why systemd is bad it's not my problem. binary logs are fucking terrible. that's bad design. it might be good for you but I haven't seen you offer an example of why you think its good, you just double down on the FUD SHILLS argument

How is systemd bad design when it works so much better than everything it replaced? Do you people not remember what a pile of shit Linux used to be? It actually works pretty well now. For example:

>all of a sudden, I need my process one for my login daemon
Things like starting X, suspend/resume, and even shutdown used to be a total mess. These days, we take it all for granted. You have systemd to thank for that. If you want to go back to the bad old days, try using an old display manager like SLiM that doesn't integrate with systemd. You'll quickly see how much useful functionality systemd was providing you, and how much of a hassle everything is without it.

Binary logs are optional. Debian, for example, doesn't use them.

We can tell you are a fucking moron because you don't know what you are talking about.

Systemd absolutely does not force you to use journald or its logger.

>it's not my problem
it is when you go around bitching at anyone who would listen about how bad systemd is, it's on you to elaborate
>binary logs are fucking terrible
no they're not, what do you do to your superior plain text logs when you want to see only the logs on your last boot? go ahead, ill wait

>It restarts services automatically if they fail,
>this is somehow a good thing

this blankets the issue of why shit is failing in the first place. imagine something crashing and restarting in a perpetual loop. great design.

daemons don't always crash at startup, it could be because of unsanitized inputs or a billion other reasons, nice FUD you fucking brainlet

by the way, systemd can notify you by email when your shitty programs crashes, can your superior unix-like alternative does this?

>it doesn't always happen therefore it's FUD

nice goalposts dipshit. what about when it does happen? notice how your argument falls apart?
>it could be due to-

it doesn't matter what causes it. the fact is you wouldn't be able to tell until you stop systemd from looping the initialization. kill yourself.

So your solution is for every daemon author everywhere to write 100% perfect code? That's just not gonna happen. As a server operator, I need workarounds for shitty software. I'd obviously prefer to use well-written software for all my needs but this is not always available.

>bragging about a fucking log uploading script

you can't be serious

as opposed to your "workaround" being a loop that could cause resource overhead...

I mean, no, I actually liked slim, and haven't really had too much of a hassle without systemd. didn't back in 2007-2008 either. It was more configuration, but I mean, I'm ok with that.
never said they weren't optional, just that they are bad design. plain text is easier to work between programs.
never said they weren't optional. reddit spacing also trip fag and who the fuck is "we". are you a discord shill party?
the royal "you". I've never gone into a group to bitch about systemd, but I am damn sick of shills defending it. what do you do when the logs corrupt? do you know how to use certain programs to trim plaintext files to poop out what you want?

you were trying to call systemd's automatic restart as a useless feature by mentioning only one case where it'd be useless because you were too dumb to come up with more, you simply lack the brainpower and i had to call you out on this, im genuinely sorry if it hurts your delicate fee fee
>log uploading script
that's not exactly what i was talking about though, nice try you absolute brainlet

As usual, the systemd hater claims his theoretical script that he could possibly write is somehow comparable to existing, complete functionality that has already been provided in systemd.

Yea of course you could replicate its functionality with more work, but it saves a lot of time when you don't have to.

you could configure systemd to stop trying when your shitty programs won't stop crashing, nice FUD you fucking shill

Systemd actually accounts for this possibility and handles it very smoothly. If a daemon crashes repeatedly, systemd first waits before restarting it, and if the daemon continues to crash, systemd gives up and leaves it stopped. It does not blindly enter an infinite loop as you imagine.

>what do you do when the logs corrupt?
I replace my disk instead of bitching about my system and service manager like a fucking idiot
>do you know how to use certain programs to trim plaintext files to poop out what you want?
The question was directed at you, brainlet, I'm still waiting for your answer

>you were trying to call systemd's automatic restart as a useless feature by mentioning only one case

i brought up a flaw you couldn't address because you think this system is objectively superior to alternatives. if that upsets you then i'm sorry you need thicker skin when discussing topics on Jow Forums. also that is exactly what you were talking about. nice deflection.

it's not theoretical it exists. two concepts that are as simple as log reporting and uploading aren't suddenly theoretical when combined unless you're trying to be facetious.

>i replace my disk

imagine being this retarded

it isn't a flaw, no programs are designed to handle every possible situations that could arise, which is why it's deliciously ironic because systemd actually handles daemons that can't get past its startup well by simply stopping, you're too much of a fucking brainlet to come up with actual arguments

what is cat, sed, awk, less, more, etc etc etc

i wasn't talking about every situation i was talking about a critical flaw that could disrupt productivity. stop moving goalposts and follow the discussion like a normal person please.

lol dude you are too stupid to use Linux and systemd is easier than Linux.

None of your arguments make any godamn sense and there is nothing to follow.

imagine getting triggered over a free system and service manager

multiple anons have pointed out that systemd simply stops trying instead of infinitely looping, unlike you, the systemd people actually possess an ounce of brainpower

tools that aren't capable of replicating the particular usecase i was asking you about? what's your point?

>what do you do to your superior plain text logs when you want to see only the logs on your last boot? go ahead, ill wait
you said only the logs on your last boot. this is not hard to figure out

you shouldn't tell anyone they are too stupid to use gnu/linux. its not a secret club. even if that user is wrong, but you want ego, you are a cocksucker thats why you tripcode

surely then a person with a minimal brainpower like you could figure it out? why do you keep dodging the question?

why do you keep dilating?

keep seething, brainlet

have sex

i'm not dodging the question, i've answered it, you're digging because you want me to post either a script used to find a date in a file or across files, or all logs from last boot, so you can light it up and feel like a badass but i'm not going to

bend over, bitch
nah, you're dodging because you know it's impossible without binary logs, everything you posted have been nothing but damage control

how about you grow up for once in your life and admit that binary logs have their benefits?

nigger what
what is /var/log? are you serious?

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.

unnecessary 1,2M LOC bloat pushed by corporations which supposedly solving a non-existing problem cannot be considered seriously by any person of reason and intelligence

Why, yes, people need good safe jobs, so useless crap like systemd or docker is going to be produced like piles upon piles of Java crap in 2000s or shitloads of node_modules nowadays.

Such is life

Imagine software you actively use and matters in your life would get so autistically scrutinized and watched like systemd.
Look at the bug tracker, there are '''''issues''''''' nobody in the world would come up with except when its systemd

ur a fag

Are you honestly saying that a consistent system is bad?

99% of people using GNU/Linux will never even notice their init system.
Therefore, the sane default should be something smaller and simpler such as runit or OpenRC.
Leave systemd to those who actively choose to use it.

>what do you do when the logs corrupt?
Panic, because my heavily redundant and guarded log server has been compromised, probably by a sophisticated attacker. What, you don't have a log server and just keep logs locally where an attacker can delete all trace of his activities? Or god forbid you use the insecure piece of trash that is known as syslog over a network?

Being smaller and simpler doesn't necessarily mean it's better, GNU's coreutils for example, performs better than its smaller and simpler counterparts

i never did, i just got rid of it and forgot it existed.

Attached: slaxxxxxxxxxxxx.jpg (256x256, 13K)

no, not like that, more like a default install that has too much installed? something that is harder to build a more custom build off of? I don't really know how to label it.

>99% of people using GNU/Linux will never even notice their init system.
They will if it doesn't work well. And it's not an init system, it's a system manager.

youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo&t=2m27s

>Therefore, the sane default should be something smaller and simpler such as runit or OpenRC.
Yeah no, those can't intelligently handle devices and networks being hotplugged. Try configuring a service to wait for a particular wireless network to come up. We've got laptops now grandpa.

cute

>Try configuring a service to wait for a particular wireless network to come up
nm-dispatcher

>Being smaller and simpler doesn't necessarily mean it's better
No, but it does mean it's potentially more secure, which, for the init process, is arguably the most desirable characteristic.
The GNU coreutils aren't running at PID 1, they can afford being larger in exchannge for speed and functionality.

systemd only benefits developers, not the users. it's easier to maintain, not use. that's all.

If you want to start something at boot, writing a systemd service file is much easier than writing an init script.

>A stop job is running for Session c1 of user user (3m28s/5819days)

It isn't good either.

Now try configuring a service that relies on two network interfaces, and also needs to mount a network filesystem after one of the interfaces come up.

systemd is only large because it provides many low level functionality, it isn't because the devs suddenly woke up one dy and decided to write 1.2 million lines of C that does absolutely nothing

phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Systemd-Fuzzing-Fuzzit
more projects that deal with untrusted inputs should really consider fuzzing their shit

only right answer. I hate cat -v people but there must be a middle ground. The schism over systemd is more evidence of an emerging conservative mindset within technology. the 2020s are going to be the decade of security and security must be simple. I think you will see even more stripped down deployments of linux and i'm hoping a resurgence of bsd.

feels like you shouldn't use it if you want to learn more about how how other init systems work and also it's kinda handicapping you at the same time as well as fucking you over if you don't know where to find your service files and how to daemonize them manually

years ago but when I found it booted slower and was harder to maintain than OpenRC I went back