What's so bad about systemd?

what's so bad about systemd?

Other urls found in this thread:

suckless.org/sucks/systemd
without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd
blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/09/23/end-of-linux/
infoworld.com/article/2608798/data-center/systemd--harbinger-of-the-linux-apocalypse.html
eff.dragoncon.org/2015/07/06/systemd-the-end-of-linux-as-we-know-it/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

its gay

it goes against the unix philosophy

That license plate must be an abbreviation for something else. They don't have computers in west virginia.

Sy's touring emergency medical vehicle?? nah that doesn't sound right

Pottery

Greybeards who haven't committed anything to the kernel in 15 years just sputtering FUD. Just ignore them.

red hat+lennart

this

it is gay and goes against the unix philosophy, and is subversive in nature wanting to control everything like a fucking tyrant dictator

...

OP here, let me rephrase. If systemd is so bad, why do so many distros use it?

lazyness

Your shilling. Faggot.

What's there to shill? It already won.

It's a system init that manages daemons by taking advantage of being PID 1.

What's so wrong about that?

I'd give your system the d.

What even IS systemmd?

it's an init (initialization) that boostraps (starts/begins to run) the user space of an OS and runs in the background managing tasks as a daemon (program that runs in the background)

I don't know why Sup Forums dislikes it, but its kind of convoluted and complicated which goes against the Unix philosophy of keeping things relatively simple.

>if communism is so bad, why a lot of people fell for that meme?

and its just system-d, its a naming convention that has stuck with linux to name processes with *d

>implying

There are plenty of computers in WV.

>sent from Innwood, WV

>what's so bad about systemd?


Nothing. Sup Forums just parrots stupid shit they don't understand in the first place.

The biggest issue is that it's largely unaudited, so there "could be" some kind of back door in the code for NSA to snoop.

delusional faggot, most used distros use systemd. 10 years ago this thread would have been shilling, right now it looks like a decent question, but it' s attracting too many faggots who can't properly explain why is a bad thing besides the robot answer "goes against unix philosophy".
Is there anyone here that could properly answer or make a valid argument?
Does it take a hit in performance?
Makes shit more complicated?
create fragmentation by being implemented differently across distros?
Anyone?

first decent post in the thread
Still I'm curious to know what else or why is it so largely unaudited if it's being used by so many.

communism is inevitable

Linux goes against the unix philosophy.

After ditching Windows in favor for Linux for a decade, Munich now decides switching back to Windows again. Really makes you think huh?

Another reason to use it.

>implying it's not bribing
Though Limux is outdated shit which potentially uses sysv, so fuck you.

It is thoroughly tested as befitting such an important component.

Also the maintainers strive to cater to their userbase. Promptly solving any problem via the infamous "CLOSED WORKSFORME NOTABUG"

Devuan, Tails on usb...
Really tho, systemd needs to be optional on install.

Tails uses systemd though

Communism just werks.

>why is it so largely unaudited if it's being used by so many
Because it's still growing way too fast.
Once the audit finishes, they could start from beginning because the code base is *that* fast and changes happen so fast.

it's just something to complain about for people who aren't qualified enough to discover actual problems and and make useful suggestions

this

Had it been anyone else it wouldn't have had quite the same frosty reception.

>tfw no systemd

That's one of the best feels that I know of.

systemd makes it so easy to manage actual fucking system tasks and the unit files beat hacky shell scripts for daemon management. You can turn nearly anything into a manageable unit and even add an arbitrary amount of overrides whenever the need arises. It jest werks and is so easy to handle with the tooling as soon as you manage getting over yourself and learn how it works.

If the distro doesn't use systemd, how do I executa a systemd-analyze in it?

any of you fags installing Fedora 25 yet?
systemD wants to own your PC just like Windows, come on the Koolaide is good so drink it

>it's an init (initialization) that boostraps (starts/begins to run) the user space of an OS and runs in the background managing tasks as a daemon (program that runs in the background)
Except it does a literal fuckton of other things by now an init system would never had business doing on any remotely sane system.

>The biggest issue is that it's largely inauditable

Fixed it for you (and everyone else).

>delusional faggot, most used distros use systemd.
Which is the single greatest catastrophe for Linux in the quarter century it has existed, and may indeed turn out to be its ultimate doom.

>Is there anyone here that could properly answer or make a valid argument?

But it has been answered already countless times.

suckless.org/sucks/systemd
without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd
blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/09/23/end-of-linux/
infoworld.com/article/2608798/data-center/systemd--harbinger-of-the-linux-apocalypse.html
eff.dragoncon.org/2015/07/06/systemd-the-end-of-linux-as-we-know-it/

The problem is that anytime systemd cucks like yourself are faced with specific criticism, they pretend they didn't hear it, or just say "but hurr, that's wrong, kthxbai lel", never addressing any of it.

>It jest werks and is so easy to handle
If that's paramount to you, then why not just literally fuck off to Windows land?

...

Real answer:

GNOME requires logind which requires systemd

Randomly: If i can poison the DNS cache of my init system then something has gone completely bonkers.