systemd was made to replace sysv, a slow and vurnerable init systemd. it also has a lot of extra features that fuckwits consider "bloat" so it drags in some extra dependencies
in theory this would make it slower and unstable but it doesn't, it's fast and rock solid
runit is the only init system that could even compete with this beast
Other urls found in this thread:
serverfault.com
phoronix.com
suckless.org
web.archive.org
without-systemd.org
archive.loveisover.me
twitter.com
You could write a doom implementation and hide it in the source code and no one would notice.
Also if you want speed and simplicity you need to try out runit.
Shit's so much easier/simpler than systemd and i learned it in seconds.
Anyway problem with being bloated is that at some point software becomes too big to learn/understand and too complicated to fix some issues. This is the fear linus has with linux too btw. But with linux :
1. You can compile it without most of the bloat
2. While it is still bloated it is still readable and much better maintained because the main dev is not an idiot.
3. The main dev fixes problems instead of just tagging them as WONTFIX
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
I don't like it because it's a botnet.
/thread
>systemd was made to replace sysv
Immediately wrong. Systemd was created to provide a set of building blocks for composing a complete userland for Linux systems. Providing an init system was a side effect of that goal, and is only a small part of what systemd is actually intended for.
The only reason systemd has a reputation tied tightly to its init system is because its init system was the first part of it to be pulled into nearly every distribution (because sysvinit sucked so badly that every distro maintainer wanted rid of it).
Systemd is not just its init system, and it was not created to replace sysv, even though it did a good job of that.
Only thing which conerns me is how big systemd is.
When I started my adventure with linux most fascinating thing to me was that linux supported unix philosophy "do one thing only and do it well".
Now... I have to submit to systemd and face the future of linux or go "back" to init system and pray gods that software will always be backwards compatible with init (it won't)...
I'm sad...
systemd is free software
There are quite a few other init systems that you can use instead of systemd: OpenRC, runit...
I know, if you read my post carefully you'd see that I don't think that new devs will support it over systemd.
Systemd takes too much control.
i.e. can you run GNOME without systemd?
a free botnet
As far as I know, no, you can't run Gnome without systemd. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.
But I think Gnome sucks ass, so I don't use it anyway.
Botnets aren't free software.
That's just an example of software being so dependent on systemd.
Do you have any belief that future software won't follow this path? I don't.
There is indeed a very real possibility, but I think it's still too soon to draw such conclusions. We'll see in 3-4 years.
I know that other upcoming RedHatware (wayland, flatpak, pipewire), is not dependent on systemd.
>can you run GNOME without systemd?
Yes. You can't run a version of GNOME compiled to need systemd without at least having systemd installed (it does not need to be your active init system, just installed), but you can compile GNOME to not need systemd. If you're using a binary distribution and your repository managers decided to ship a version of GNOME that they compiled to require systemd, that's not systemd's fault. If you want control over what dependencies your packages need, you should be using a source-based distro and not a binary-based one. You're going to run into this kind of problem every time you and your repository managers have conflicting philosophies about something, but you shouldn't blame the software for it.
I used sysmemed for a year or so on my gentoo laptop thinking it would boot faster. It didn't, and after spending a ton of time looking at guides and trying to trim the startup time, there was no real improvement. Now I use OpenRC which starts just as fast and isn't gay
which is hilarious because the argument made by all the systemd shills was "muh boot speeds"
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.
Compiling everything from source isn't what I want to do.
Again, GNOME was just example on how dependent software can become (to systemd).
And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't systemd suppose to ease life for devs? Which means more devs will write software dependent on it.
Will we have to port software from systemd to systems which uses init..?
systemd creates divide in linux community.
anyways... did someone tried any systemd fork? Just checked and there are quite a number of forks
>Compiling everything from source isn't what I want to do
Well somebody has to compile the software for you then, and that means they get to choose what flags the software is compiled with. You don't get to both have someone else handle all compilation for you, but also dictate what flags they use.
>wasn't systemd suppose to ease life for devs?
It was supposed to do that and does do that. If a dev uses that as a reason to not support anything else other than systemd though, that's the fault of that dev. Otherwise you would need to argue that software should be made purposefully shitty so that people refuse to write code that depends on it.
>Will we have to port software from systemd to systems which uses init..?
First of all stop misusing "init". "init" is not some separate program that systemd replaced. "init" is just the name of the link to the binary that acts as the init system on some platform. All init systems have an "init", and saying "init" doesn't refer to any one init system in particular.
And yes, if software is written poorly and refuses to support other init systems, it would obviously have to be ported to anything else you want it to work on. Again though, that's the fault of the developer creating that software and not the fault of systemd.
>systemd creates divide in linux community.
Only between people who know what they're doing and the handful of whiny idiots who love to hate on systemd without understanding anything about it.
>implying that anyone misunderstood what I meant with "init"
Do you understand everything about it?
>Do you understand everything about it?
Yes
I have just one question then
why it was necessary for systemd be more than init system?
systemd is the *worst* thing that has happened to linux. It is open source, so this is not just a fabricated claim, you can look at the code commits where all the bullshit happens, they're linked here:
suckless.org
...
Minimal free software is true software
except editing init levels is really easy and there's really no reason for systemd to exist except someone bitched about it too long
It wasn't necessary, it was just a good idea
You can literally make the same argument for the kernel itself. Isn’t it like 4 million lines of code or something? If you did that though, you’d either have to acknowledge your hypocrisy or change OS’s
SANE DEFAULTS
A
N
E
D
E
F
A
U
L
T
S
>good idea
How come? Why fix something that isn't broken?
Sorry, you already used your one question
fuck suckemd
lennart poettering:
archive.loveisover.me
>linux supported unix philosophy "do one thing only and do it well".
Wrong. What kind of ass-wipe would think a single purpose OS would be appealing?
It needs to be that big because of drivers.
systemd doesn't have that excuse.
:(
unix philosophy:
> Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new "features".
> Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don't clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don't insist on interactive input.
> Design and build software, even operating systems, to be tried early, ideally within weeks. Don't hesitate to throw away the clumsy parts and rebuild them.
> Use tools in preference to unskilled help to lighten a programming task, even if you have to detour to build the tools and expect to throw some of them out after you've finished using them.
Who's talking about OS, you mongoloid
Way to intentionally misinterpret what he said.
A more brainlet-friendly version would be "each component in the OS does one thing only and does it well"
funny how the idiot posts an anti-trump picture
Fuck off, Lennart.
Love,
Real UNIX niggas
>each component in the OS
Go back to bed Stallman.
I'm still waiting for systemd-minesweeper
...
Recently systemd reached 1 million LoC. Maybe it's already somewhere there. :^)
t. literal retard
Linux
Is
Not
UniX
Yes, and? That doesn't mean that Linux can not support unix philosophy.
no argument
we were responding to the phrase
>"linux supported unix philosophy"...
there is no assumption linux is unix
The only reason why those "not unix"-type acronyms exist is because they were making it clear that they were not using any of the actual code from AT&T unix, not because of an intentional disdain for the philosophy behind it.
Wrong. I am not a retard. I am great. I am the greatest. I am the greatest and people love me.
t. revisionist historians
"Linux Is Not UniX" is already revisionist history, that's not what it stood for, and you'd know that if you knew anything about the history of Linux
Jesus Christ, do you have brain damage?
From a dev perspective, shit WAS broken.
Any examples? There are plenty of systemd being broken.
This is the most retarded post I've read today.
Just dropped by to see what all the fuss was about. Imagine my surprise when I see all these BSD faggots shilling for UNIX. Damn, they aren't even subtle about it either.
>BSD faggots
Where? I use Void Linux. May move to Gentoo later.
It's true.
Fun fact: macOS has the UNIX certificate, GNU and BSD hasn't.
If you want UNIX, get a Mac.
Well, then, I guess you shouldn't have typed it out and posted it.
>GNU and BSD hasn't.
I wonder why?
Linux isn't an acronym. It's just Linus with an X. GNU is an acronym, meaning GNU's Not Unix
Pretty sure they simply bought it.
>debian moves to systemd
>for the first time in years everything on my computer starts falling apart, crashing all the time, etc
>switch to distro that doesn't use systemd
>everything just works again
I don't know shit about how this low level stuff works, but going through the above was enough to convince me.
Systemd is a cancer and must be stopped.
...
who is this retard
Gary Murphy author of Linux Kernel Architecture (2001).
Openrc vs runit. Which one is better?
runit
Someone please answer this I want to know!
Why?
had a better experience with it, so just my bias.
shepherd master race
herding daemons with guile spells like a madman
Systemd is inherently bad because it's against the UNIX philosophy, which just means in 5 years when people foolishly adopt it and something breaks, you won't be able to just swap out the faulty system. You're stuck with the whole package now.
Ok.
Any other people want to weigh in on this?
How's that one compared to the rest?
There is no comparison.
GuixSD and everything they're doing is the future.
Explain.
Sell me.
>fully dedicated to free software, gnu sponsored and fsf endorsed
>no terrible systemd or kernel bloob nonsense
>lisp (guile[scheme]) hackable on every level, entire os and all packages are just normal lisp declarations
>functional package management, roll anything back (including the entire os) to any previous [working] state, basically impossible to break beyond repair
devs will want it for it"s virtual machine and consistent reproducible build capabilities
casuals will want it because it has gnome/xfce/mate and everything just works (you do not have to be a lisp or programming wizard to make this usable, yet if you are, nothing is obfuscated or kept from you)
>gnu sponsored and fsf endorsed
You mean like GNUStep and Trisquel? A couple of the worst distros?
>lisp hackable on every level, entire os and all packages are just normal lisp declarations
That would be nice if they don't force it into areas of the OS where it doesn't belong, but I bet they do it anyway and it comes with drawbacks.
>roll anything back (including the entire os) to any previous [working] state
That means it's storing all previous states. That likely hogs a lot of resources for a feature I'll probably never use.
>devs will want it
Will? Why don't they want it already?
>casuals will want it because it has gnome/xfce/mate
Like every other distro? Great.
Sounds like a meme
the problem with systemd is that it's only meant for a certain type of user. for me, a user that runs linux on desktops and small servers, i have no use for systemd. i don't care about boot performance on complex systems or the ability to scale administration to thousands of nodes.
i care simplicity, transparency, ease of use and consistency with the unix philosophy. thats how i work. i don't need systemd and i don't want it. sysv init is fine for me.
the worst part of systemd though is it shattered my little unix dream world bubble. open source was supposed to bring about control to the little guy, the users, the developers, the people without the backing of sun, microsoft, ibm et al. but open source failed. the choice is gone. it's systemd or nothing. systemd, while not only being a step backwards in terms of technology, is also a slap in the face to all the people who thought they had a system they could trust. maybe i was naive, maybe all systemd do is remove the illusion. i don't know. all i know is systemd won and it's on my team.
everything about systemd remind me of microsoft: the heist of a software system i like and was familiar with, the twisting of simplicity into an opaque monster, the proliferation of vast attack surfaces, the arrogance in the way it was presented as mandate, not as an option.
>gnome
>systemd
wonder how an DE with tons of tools and potentially vulnerable code with pseudo javascrip running would end up inside systemd.... just wonder who told them to do it like that,,, o it was only a guy.... that maybe was contacted by the CIA... TO FUCKING MAKE ALL DISTROS VULNERABLE IN THE MOST OBFUSCATED MANNER!!!
systemd was made by the cia to backdoor your linux distro
they fixed one vulnerable system with another?
Theo's linux does it somehow
> Theo's linux
:^)
Oh wowzers I remember all the problems I had to deal with when I upgraded all our servers debian 8. I had to rewrite lots if fucking "systemd services" to get our machines to work. And still I had to disable systemd's access to interfaces as it fucked em up
I'm still salty. Systemd might be ok for faggots who never do anything else than shitpost on Sup Forums.
Linux is actually really easy to navigate. However, it needs doxygen or something because the doc/ misses a lot of sublteties.
As for runit, any debian based distros with it?
What is also funny, ive monitored the boot order in a vm, the order changes when i adjust the number of cpu cores and ram. Systemds answer? "Speed!" Crapware.
>install gentoo
>install systemd with gentoo
>mfw
If you think run levels are better than targets and services you are smoking a nigger.
Lmao its literally an NSA honeypot. Pottering is equivalent to zuckerburg at this point, just a pawn using by the goverment to control a cleverly push ways to monitor millions of people. You should feel ashamed for making this thread
Generally I'd be happy with systemd if the following things were true:
* The docs were actually accurate, instead of being what they aspire to eventually complete.
* They were consistent in the syntax used in unit files
* Systemd didn't keep locking up after a couple of months of uptime, requiring a reboot via sysreq, or the --force --force --force option to systemctl reboot.
Underrated post and most likely /thread
Thx user
>why it was necessary for systemd be more than init system?
Because no one fucking wants an init system. They want to run services and manage them sanely, monitor when they started and stopped, what log messages they printed at what time, what dependencies they need, what order to start which dependencies in, how to tell when a service has finished starting and whether a service even needs to be started at all, transparently isolate each service in individual containers with DNS set up transparently without any additional configuration within each container (this is why systemd ships a "DNS server") and not have to hire a full time sysadmin to babysit each individual physical server.
Linux stands for Linus' Minix, as in it's made by a guy named Linus and it's a ripoff of an OS kernel called Minix. The OS itself is GNU Linux and the GNU project is itself an attempt to create a free(-as-in-beer) software version of Unix.
...