Tell me exactly what's wrong with this

Tell me exactly what's wrong with this.

Other urls found in this thread:

without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd
serverfault.com/questions/755818/systemd-using-4gb-ram-after-18-days-of-uptime
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=systemd-2017-Git-Activity
suckless.org/sucks/systemd
web.archive.org/web/20170724100245/https://muchweb.me/systemd-nsa-attempt/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Everything

Break unix philosophy

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.

Breaks*

Shit opinion
Decent pasta

without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd

It's botnet

it's too big

Fuck the dev always leaving shit broken and as WONTFIX, plus it's an unmaintainable mess.

pottering is what's wrong with it

it's the same reason why gnome is shit - the devs are shit

well systemd is shit because pottering is shit

that's all there is to it

Like every fucking modern software that used by more people than its developers. Welcome in 2018.

The d in systemd stands for dbus.

Nothing, it's great.

Outside of mom's basement, in the real world, thousands upon thousands of machines are being deployed daily with systemd and it's working perfectly.

What's the problem with that?

Why?

it hurts

Because it doesn't respect your freedoms

Source?

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/questions/755818/systemd-using-4gb-ram-after-18-days-of-uptime

Some see it as an unnecessary security risk due to its massive attack surface. It recently hit 1 million lines of code.
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=systemd-2017-Git-Activity

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/sucks/systemd

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/web/20170724100245/https://muchweb.me/systemd-nsa-attempt/

For more links and arguments, see:
without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd

this

local privilege escalation
even remote code execution in systemd-resolved

Its creator is a humongous cunt, mostly.

Ok, but it was just a zero day. All software may contain vulnerabilities.

traditional init never had this problem

...and nothing.

That's the magic of it.

A non autistic complaint is that I literally have no use for it.

Traditional init didn't have THIS problem either!

>Using a device with EFI in the first place
Don't get me wrong, systemd's lead dev is a fucking joke and needs to be gassed, but nice botnet.

Eh, UEFI is nice. Maybe it's because I never grew up installing Linux onto BIOS systems, but they always seemed a little strange to me.

If I wanted a large and monolithic platform with feature creep and broken promises, I'd still be using Windows.

On BIOS it just werks. It just scans drives for boot information and executes it. Nothing fancy.

Systemd was created by the NSA as another backdoor into GNU/Linux.

>people use it
>that means it's good
Yeah no. Not how it works.

Nothing, I love my GUHnuu linux being developed by autistic g*rmans who cuck to redhat NSA CIA niggers, argues with autistic finnish men, and loves working 20 hour days while mehmet from libya blacks his g*rman slut girlfriend. I think this is the ideal model GUHnuu linux developer lifestyle and systemDick is an excellent example of the products of such lifestyles.

The only machines that matter are old Thinkpads used by 20-something-year-old males who want to feel like they’re part of some resistance movement.

>all EFI implementations are a botnet
Hello, tech illiterate.

Hello Intel ME/ AMD PSP user

>Hello Intel ME/ AMD PSP user
I'm a Coreboot maintainer, faggot. I stripped my IME firmware on all of my Core i machines I totally removed it on all of my Core2 stuff. Suck my big benis.

>coreboot
nice botnet, friend.

>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 want well designed programs that interface well with other programs that depend on it, thus allowing me to have both of these options.

>t. trannyboot user

>>coreboot
>nice botnet, friend.
The non-free drivers are optional to integrate, and are not a part of Coreboot itself. Do you want your hardware to work or not? That's the real question here.

>t. botnet user

>I want well designed programs that interface well with other programs that depend on it
So you want systemd

Literally irrelevant.
That's saying that a rock song is awful because isn't not a pop song.

>it breaks the programming guidelines that a bunch of ivory-tower-shielded guys wrote about programming old-big-and-clunky machines that did anything that computers do now

i fucking hate this dumb asshole for bitching about the 'treatment' he gets in the FOSS community when he then turns around and allows people to brick their fucking computers because he doesn't want people to realize just how poorly written his "life's work" is. Fuck him.

systemd fits the bill, but the point is we don't need it if we have well designed interfaces (which we do, btw). Needing it brings along all of the confusion and risks a large, hard to audit, piece of software entails.
We don't need systemd, so why do we have it?

>if we have well designed interfaces (which we do, btw)
Yeah.
What are those?

BIOS's days are numbered.
You'll be hard pressed to find a modern motherboard that still uses BIOS, rather than UEFI with a BIOS compatibility layer.

Does your corebooted hardware work without Intel Me firmware? If not, how is that optional?

Is this true?

Werks on my machine.

Just look at any machine not running systemd. Now look at how the various processes communicate with each other. There's your answer.
The long post claims that systemd serves an important purpose: a suite of software working closely together to deliver a system that just werks, shielding the user from having to choose what tools they want or dealing with compatibility issues. That is not what it is, that kind of implies it follows Unix philosophy, which it doesn't. It's not a collection of software, it's one big program trying to do the things existing software can do well already.

It's open source. The backdoors are clearly visible if you only took the time to look.

>Just look at any machine not running systemd. Now look at how the various processes communicate with each other. There's your answer.
Pipes and Unix sockets?
Literally what said.
Those interfaces are insufficient right now and became source of issues for distros for a long time.

>rather than UEFI with a BIOS compatibility layer
Most UEFI implementations that offer BIOS compatibility are in fact an EFI put on top of a traditional BIOS. So when you get the option on ThinkPads for example to have it set to UEFI only, then you can only boot GPT disks with it. When you set it to compatibility, the BIOS runs first and boots the MBR disk. If a GPT disk is first in your boot order, then the EFI will kick in and boot that instead. If you set it to legacy or BIOS only, then it'll only boot MBR disks. Otherwise you have Apple's EFI, which since they switched to x86 has offered Hybrid MBR, which is where the BIOS runs on top of the EFI instead. Of course, turning off EFI means you lose the advantages like Secure Boot, larger boot disks, hybrid boot, and sometimes even the ability to update the firmware until you turn the EFI back on. It all depends on the implementation. Therefore, most machines still do ship with a traditional BIOS. There's just a bunch of shit pasted on top, and the OEMs never do a good job of writing their EFI implementations.

>2016
Don't you have something newer

Yes, they do for the most part, it's a little more nuanced than a simple yes or no. The IME firmware is highly modular. In Libreboot the firmware is totally stripped out, where a bit in the flash descriptor of the Core2 IME implementation can set to allow you to bypass the IME all together and allow the BIOS alone to handle hardware init, security, and power management. When you use me_cleaner on newer chipsets, you're stripping out a majority of the modules for the IME, which reside on the same EEPROM as your BIOS, just in different partitions. You can modify the FPT (firmware partition table), which points to partitions which contain modules for the IME to execute. You can make it point only to the BUP (Bring Up) module, which does only power management and basic hardware init. The BUP is harmless on its own and doesn't pose any threat, and is incredibly small. The machine will go into a 30 minute boot loop without the BUP though. But without the kernel, AMT, SPI, and other modules, the IME cannot phone home to Intel and it cannot reinstall itself or install updates, as the kernel with all the APIs and scheduler will be missing, and it can't even process firmware update packages or microcode. It's disabled for all intents and purposes. Freetards refuse to accept it because a couple hundred KB of non-free but harmless code is still running in the IME.

Might as well be since systemd is insecure spaghetti code that's too big to reasonably audit in real time, even with a huge team of people.

Why? It's still not fixed, because in the words of Harry Pottering, "it's a feature, not a bug".

Nothing else even comes close.

trannies are much worse than the botnet though

Hey guys, I just finished reading the memo. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's anything major. Save your time and don't bother reading it.

It does too much in too controversial ways.

...

Can't we just make a better systemd?

I mean, we don't have to make even half of what it does.

...

...

>the memo
So now that you've ruined Sup Forums you're trying to pollute Sup Forums? You have to go back.

it's a shit version of Sun SMF.
it's almost like GNU software is shitty clones of engineered and designed commercial software.

Feature creep. It's not bad as a service manager/init replacement though.

And? For one, what the fuck is the Unix philosophy? "Do something that does one thing and let the user extend it?" That's not the Unix philosophy, believe it or not, Luke Smith actually did not make Unix. The real philosophy is that
1. The application didn't even need to work correctly
2. but it must be small
Now computers don't have 12K of RAM, number 2 is useless. This never changed, only you fucks decided to take an idea universally hated everywhere and transform it. If you wonder what the ACTUAL Unix philosophy brought to the table you can look at the living abomination sendmail.

Yes. Don't you find it suspicious how systemd appeared seemingly out of nowhere and then was quickly adopted by all the major distros?

check this, i recently bought a new Dell with a Ryzen 7 and Radeon RX 580, and every systemd distro i put on it would lock up and crash daily, i recenly put absolute-15 beta 3 on it which is a slackware compatible fork and so far not one crash, running perfectly, even xorg and the kernel firmware is recognising the video card properly,

fuck systemd it is a piece of bloated shit,

is there a fedora fork that doesn't use systemd?
I was hardcore arch/gentoofag but fedora offers most of the benefit with much less effort to set everything up.

I do. Frankly I just needed my suspicions confirmed. I guess I need to install devuan or something. I'm very used to mint xfce so hopefully this won't be too annoying.

>look at the living abomination sendmail.
A program that has worked and is rock solid for over 30 years; sounds alright for me.