redpill me on systemd
Redpill me on systemd
Thomas Turner
Other urls found in this thread:
serverfault.com
phoronix.com
suckless.org
web.archive.org
without-systemd.org
news.ycombinator.com
twitter.com
Luke Lewis
Its crap for fags.
Levi Sullivan
it's a convenient way to manage your system
but linux beardchildren hate convenience
Alexander Perez
There's a LOT of reasons why people don't like it, and I think the people who don't like it all likely have their own reasons for not liking it.
Here's a posting about someone discovering a massive memory leak that used up 4GB of ram. While I have yet to see something this massive, I have definitely noticed Systemd using more memory than the alternatives, and some leakage here and there as well.
serverfault.com
Some see it as an unnecessary security risk due to its massive attack surface. It recently hit 1 million lines of code.
phoronix.com
Some don't like it because they dislike its habit of scope creep. The project ends up assimilating things that historically should not have anything to do with init. gif related.
suckless.org
There's also some other design decisions that people have an issue with, such as using Google DNS by default (because of course systemd can handle DNS), using binary logs, etc.
Lastly there's the conspiracy theory side of it, which alleges that systemd is an NSA attempt to compromise GNU/Linux, and due to Systemd as a project moving way too fast, it can't be properly audited.
web.archive.org
For more links and arguments, see:
without-systemd.org
Jackson Fisher
For the Google DNS issues, see pic related
Alexander Garcia
linux, and by extension, posix is shit. Lennart noticed this and attempted to create API driven services to clean up a lot of the fucked up and moronic behavior. What resulted was a bunch of uneducated morons, who were incapable of replacing what was clearly a necessity, rightfully and also unjustly calling it shit.
What we have now is a mediocre, but better than nothing, hodgepodge of services that do service, device, coredump, logging and now networking and some NSS components (DNS, soon user management with systemd-homed). We all wish for better, but no one has the ability to actually do better or get the mass adoption like lennart can.
Adam Powell
runit is more convenient, while also being more sane.
SystemD is just crap.
Dominic Johnson
I've taken to call it IBM/SystemD
Brandon Ross
A common argument in systemd's defense is that everyone should use it because init scripts are freakishly long. In reality, that's only true in the case of sysvinit. It's one of Poettering's common tactics. There's a lot of alternatives out there, but let's just single out the one that makes my shit look more favorable and ignore anything that utterly BTFOs my argument. Nope! Pay no attention to Runit or others. There is only sysvinit and systemd. That's the only things that ever existed because that's how I'm framing it.
Jackson Cook
don't forget the times when it bricked laptops
Elijah Hughes
the infamous motherboard bricking. Thought rm -rf / would just wipe the OS? You'd be wrong. Because of how Systemd handles efivars, it could permanently destroy your computer
Kevin Anderson
And of course Systemd's code quality is something to behold.
Owen Scott
But don't worry everyone! Poettering will rewrite it in rust so we're safe! /s
Evan Green
It’s NSA sponsored garbage
Andrew Harris
has never been fully audited by an independent, reputable third party
Jackson Cook
systemd is a complexity layer that makes it impossible for the end user to understand, customize or audit the system.
It takes control away from the user and puts it in the hands of Red Hat, not unlike proprietary software.
By consuming important system utilities and making more and more packages depend on it, it's on its way to becoming unavoidable.
This, when taken to its logical conclusion, would effectively put Red Hat in control of every GNU/Linux distro.
There are people who are okay with this, some may welcome it with open arms.
It's fine because after all, Red Hat is not an "evil" corporation like Microsoft, is it? Wrong.
Red Hat is a corporation, and as every corporation it seeks to increase its profits via market expansions among other means.
The obvious subplot behind systemd is complete market dominance.
Brayden Rogers
cont.
Think about what that would mean.
Even if Red Hat is "not that bad", people are people and a miss here and there is par for the course.
There are only a few paid Red Hat developers who understand systemd's huge, unstable codebase.
We would have to rely on them to not only fix, but also notice security vulnerabilities.
Having the meat of every GNU/Linux distro depend on a single company can only have disastrous consequences.
They could inadvertently do things that would at best inconvenience people or at worst fuck them over completely.
What if, for example, years after systemd had firmly rooted itself into the ecosystem, Red Hat went under?
(on a separate note, systemd firmly rooting itself into the ecosystem could spell death for Linux alternatives)
Now, let's stop assuming the highly unlikely possibility of Red Hat having only the best intentions in mind.
Red Hat is a corporation and like every other corporation, they care about profit over all else.
If they decided to take things in a direction that fucks the user in one way or another, no one would be able to do anything about it.
It's a matter of fact that Red Hat has ties to the NSA.
They could be paid to slip in a backdoor or overlook a few vulnerabilities and no one would even notice.
Trusting Red Hat is the epitome of naivety.
Ethan Collins
yes, because constraining people to varying levels of libc cancer wasn't totally a API lock-in of its own. systemd is leagues more customizable than worrying about your libc not doing NSS in a way you expect, e.g. musl and the whole kubernetes fiasco.
Carter Hall
Good and solid arguments.
Nathaniel Butler
The author seems to have gotten BTFO'd pretty thoroughly in the comments. He even managed to introduce an integer overflow bug in the scant few lines of code that he presented as his own "better" solutions
Joseph Perez
It’s for trannies and gays so most Linux users love it.
Caleb Parker
>mfw systemd uses java style braces
James Parker
We should thank SystemD for pointing out with the index finger what distros do not give a flying fuck anymore about GNU/Linux and Opensource
Lincoln Gomez
if it's bad then why all distributions adopted it?
Adam Davis
Seems like it was fixed 20 days later in kernel itself - news.ycombinator.com
Samuel Evans
Good times.
Colton Rogers
>b-but that's not systemd's fault! it's their own fault for rm -rf /-ing! closed wontfix
Joshua Martin
Good question though.
Brayden Garcia
because:
1. red hat is the biggest player in the GNU/Linux world and they pushed hard for systemd adoption
2. some of the core system components of every modern distro (like udev and logind) that a lot of software depends on got merged into systemd
( ^ this is probably the biggest reason why debian adopted it)
3. it makes lazy distro maintainers' job easier
( ^ biggest reason why arch adopted it)
fedora is led by red hat so naturally it was the first to adopt systemd
derivative distros followed suit
Jack Taylor
has sysvinit?
Ryan Foster
systemd is a System and Service Manager for Linux, compatible with SysV and LSB init scripts. systemd provides aggressive parallelization capabilities, uses socket and D-Bus activation for starting services, offers on-demand starting of daemons, keeps track of processes using Linux control groups, supports snapshotting and restoring of the system state, maintains mount and automount points and implements an elaborate transactional dependency-based service control logic.
Christian Hughes
>systemd is a System and Service Manager for Linux
no it's not
Nicholas Harris
whatis systemd
Luis Gray
Are you saying white man Poettering writes bad code? That's impossible!
Dominic Harris
A kernel
Matthew Taylor
Hudson Richardson
that's the least of it