>Gpl licensed, free and open source
>"Just werks"
>Faster boot process
>Eliminates bloat/meme packages
There is NO reason why one should delete systemd from his system. There is nothing systemd can't do what other init systems can.
>Botnet
Source is open, show where
>Not Unix
Neither is linux
>Not portable
Sysvinit is not portable as well, Also, who the FUCK cares about BSD?
>pottering
So what packages did YOU make yesterday?
youtube.com
pipedot.org
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
pipedot.org
soylentnews.org
news.ycombinator.com
lists.freedesktop.org
without-systemd.org
without-systemd.org
without-systemd.org
0pointer.de
twitter.com
Monolithic.
>So is Linux
>If you build systemd with all configuration options enabled you will build 69 individual binaries. These binaries all serve different tasks, and are neatly separated for a number of reasons. For example, we designed systemd with security in mind, hence most daemons run at minimal privileges (using kernel capabilities, for example) and are responsible for very specific tasks only, to minimize their security surface and impact. Also, systemd parallelizes the boot more than any prior solution. This parallization happens by running more processes in parallel. Thus it is essential that systemd is nicely split up into many binaries and thus processes. In fact, many of these binaries[1] are separated out so nicely, that they are very useful outside of systemd, too.
>A package involving 69 individual binaries can hardly be called monolithic. What is different from prior solutions however, is that we ship more components in a single tarball, and maintain them upstream in a single repository with a unified release cycle.
Next please
Don't react to Microsoft's paid trolling and FUD of systemd. Assmad Microsoft hating that GNU has something that makes even more of a superior OS vs. Windows is the only reason systemd is attacked.
>So what packages did YOU make yesterday?
Ad hominem, not an argument.
A Fedora user who logged a bug report for this issue back in 2013 described the problem with systemd's unexpected and harmful default setting:
> As systemd depends on many files on a rootfs, in case of any problems with rootfs, it is not able to do its basic function - control processes and (cleanly) shutdown/reboot when crtl-alt-del is pressed on local keyboard. As this is a feature, I'd like to ask to enable the sysrq by default on Fedora, otherwise it is not possible to reboot system even locally in case of emergency situation.
While that Fedora bug report is set to CLOSED NOTABUG, other Linux distros, like Mageia and Debian GNU/Linux, have restored the proper behavior.
>tl;dr NOTABUG is not something that you want a dev saying to behaviour like that.
pottering a shit.
You got told OP,
Pottering a shit, systemDick a shit
>ad hominem
Oh wait
LMAO keep crying in your basement, unemployed worthless NEET
More ad hominem, give me your sweet tears of rage.
Systemd would be much better if the devs weren't so dismissive of the community.
>Shitposts get dismissed
I see nothing wrong here.
I'll be running my GNOME with Wayland here :^)
What was supposed to be an init replacement has severly bloated to overtake the entire GNU/Linux system. Soon, even the userland will be completely replace the userland and it will have to be renamed systemd/linux.
Anyone here using Devuan? Recently made the switch from Debian to Devuan and I still found a bunch of systemd files under /etc/ /lib/ /usr/ and /var/. Why are they there?
Ask the mailing lists, im sure they can answer.
How is your experience with devuan? Is it good?
I've posted clear reasons why systemD is crap, you can't counter it, get mad.
Git gud scrub, your thread is shit.
>bloated
There's certainly some truth in that. Modern computers are complex beasts, and the OS running on it will hence have to be complex too. However, systemd is certainly not more complex than prior implementations of the same components. Much rather, it's simpler, and has less redundancy (see above). Moreover, building a simple OS based on systemd will involve much fewer packages than a traditional Linux did. Fewer packages makes it easier to build your system, gets rid of interdependencies and of much of the different behaviour of every component involved.
Myth: systemd is bloated.
Well, bloated certainly has many different definitions. But in most definitions systemd is probably the opposite of bloat. Since systemd components share a common code base, they tend to share much more code for common code paths. Here's an example: in a traditional Linux setup, sysvinit, start-stop-daemon, inetd, cron, dbus, all implemented a scheme to execute processes with various configuration options in a certain, hopefully clean environment. On systemd the code paths for all of this, for the configuration parsing, as well as the actual execution is shared. This means less code, less place for mistakes, less memory and cache pressure, and is thus a very good thing. And as a side-effect you actually get a ton more functionality for it...
As mentioned above, systemd is also pretty modular. You can choose at build time which components you need, and which you don't need. People can hence specifically choose the level of "bloat" they want.
When you build systemd, it only requires three dependencies: glibc, libcap and dbus. That's it. It can make use of more dependencies, but these are entirely optional.
So, yeah, whichever way you look at it, it's really not bloated.
All I see is autism, my NEET friend
>/dsct/ - Daily Systemd Circlejerk Thread
kek
>There is NO reason why one should delete systemd from his system. There is nothing systemd can't do what other init systems can.
kek
>Source is open, show where
kek
>Neither is linux
kek
>Sysvinit is not portable as well, Also, who the FUCK cares about BSD?
kek
>So what packages did YOU make yesterday?
kek
>youtube.com
kek
>pipedot.org
kek
More pain for OP
>PID 1 segfaulting on upgrade; journalctl usability issue
bug report still marked as "NEW"
lol
soylentnews.org
>kek
The final resort of someone who's out of argument.
Take your salt to
>Modern computers are complex beasts, and the OS running on it will hence have to be complex too.
What? You can run Kolibri OS on a top of the line computer just fine. You're making no sense.
>Oh LOOK I FOUND A BUG :DDDDDDDDD
>The final resort of someone who's out of argument.
kek
>All I see is autism, my NEET friend
All i see is that you can't parse logic and can't produce a good argument.
Also, ad hominem, still.
>bug report still marked as "NEW"
Your reading comprehension could use improvements.
>top kek 420 XDDDDD
Get out
>Screen locking issues (including a security issue) with gnome-shell.
Unresolved for more than a year.
Normally I use my laptop as a workstation, with wired Internet and a 1 T
extra disk in the cd-tray.
Today I tried to boot it in a cafe, off-line and without the extra disk.
It was not possible. Systemd would just wait indefinitely for some
start-up jobs (it was waiting for the missing disk to come on-line among
some other things). Fortunately, I had the extra disk with me, so I
attached it and tried again. Still for no use. Systemd now waited for
the network interfaces. So I had to actually connect an ethernet cable
to a router just to get the crap to boot, and then unplug it and walk
back to my table.
How did this happen? How come Debian is now /more/ useless than
Windows? It can't even boot if the hardware configuration is not exactly
the way it assumes. WTF!
Jarle
No brakes on the pain train OP.
Systemd mounted efivarfs read-write, allowing motherboard bricking via 'rm'
news.ycombinator.com
Works fine here, Jarle. Are you sure you didn't fuck up your debian setup?
Lead systemd developer doesn't understand RAID or checksum.
lists.freedesktop.org
Why would anyone want to use this crap?
>Mounting efivars as r/w
>doing rm -rf /
>""GUIZE IT'S A SYSTEMD'S FAULT, NOT MY RETARDED BRAIN"
Fuck off
Mounting efivars as r/w is what pottering thinks should be default behavior. READING COMPREHENSION, once again.
Thank you.
You sure convinced me *yawn*
Yes fucktard, pottering also assumes you know your shit when you issue rm -rvf /
FUCK OFF BRAINDEAD SCUM
So, OP is a cancer faggot, but anyone who is really interested in this topic can read more here.
Systemd has good and bad things, but the worst thing is that it seeks to stamp out any alternatives.
I'm leaving, but here are some links for those unconvinced by opie's faggotry.
> Arguments against systemd
without-systemd.org
> Linux distros without systemdick as default
without-systemd.org
> How to remove systemdick from debian
without-systemd.org
>Without-systemd
All debunked
0pointer.de
Tell me in YOUR words how systemd is bad for my day-to-day Linux experience
I already have aids. Might as well give myself cancer?
Monolithic is good.
Microkernels are garbage though :^)
From your link:
>Myth: systemd is a feature creep.
>Well, systemd certainly covers more ground that it used to. It's not just an init system anymore..
Your link in no way debunks the poinst my link raises. Moreover, users should read and decide on their own.
Good night sir.
>Well, systemd certainly covers more ground that it used to. It's not just an init system anymore..
Good, less bloats
Unprecedented retardation
This thread.
Samefag
I don't understand the hate for systemd. I use it with Gentoo and have no problems.
Bloat
...
see Disregard the first paragraph
It's been good so far. As a desktop user, I've barely noticed a difference from Debian so far. The install was the same and everything is running normally. But, it's only been a couple days so something could still come up. The Devuan forums are weird and slow moving, and doesn't seem to be much documentation, which can be annoying. Everything works like Debian, so I guess it doesn't need much.
It doesnt just replace SysV, it does much more than it needs to.
It also monopolizes the marketshare and puts down alternatives, that's a bad philosophy to have in the Linux world.
>anti establishment mindset
not an argument
It is though.
How so?
Monolithic build requirements creates multiple modular parts, but the install and operation retains a monolithic quality.
As a result, see image attached. When you get back to actually making a log process that doesn't fuck my data hard, let me know.
>in before "but you can shunt syslog"
yeah, AFTER it passes through the shitty logging process
>in before who the fuck cares about other Unix styled systems
then why is Linux a Unix knock-off?
>in before fast boot
if you give a flying fuck about fast boot times then you're doing your systems administration wrong. Fast boot is great for desktop systems - but meaningless for servers, which should be designed to stay up until (a) power failure (b) hardware failure or (c) kernel upgrade.
>in before can't prove botnet because open source
bullshit, this is a tired argument. You know there was a root exploit put into the Linux kernel years ago and the only fucking reason they found it was a code review, right?
Systemd is hundreds of thousands of lines long. Saying you can "easily audit the code" shows you're full of shit. There is no way to do a formal proof the code's security anymore than there is of the kernel itself.
>poettering
Is full of himself. His poor attitude and passive-aggressive behavior has nothing to do with code quality and everything to do with code management.
>I've heard this argument before, over a decade ago...
>when I see shitposts like this, this is always my response...
So, let me get this straight... You people use Linux because Microsoft is
evil and Windows sucks...but yet, you want to imitate Microsoft's desktop
design. You, in effect, want bring to Linux the exact same shit you claim
to hate.
Read the last two lines over again before continuing. Let it sink in.
Jesus tapdancing Christ! I swear, some of you people must be so goddamn
stupid that you'de probably forget to breathe if Barney didn't sing you a
song about it. The willingness of certain people on this mailing list to
rush headlong into building second rate knock-offs of Windows' glitter
simply and utterly astounds me. The lack of genuinely creative thought here
is staggering. The majority of the people on this list are sheep. Rather
than sit and think about how to solve the goddamn problem for themselves,
they magically assume that everything Microsoft has built is inherentlly a
good design, and one that should be followed verbatim...its quite frankly,
sickening. You are bright people. But you're wasting your time running a
race that you're guaranteed to finish in no better than 2nd place.
Its like youre trying to make something _shittier_ than a turd! And
struggling at it!
For God's sake, have ANY of you stopped and asked yourself _if_ something is
a good design before emulating it?
Anyone at all? If so, where the hell is this discussion taking place?
Cheers,
Bowie