Redpill me on systemd

...

Other urls found in this thread:

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/
without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

a shit

It's about time linux had a choice for a wholly integrated local machine management. OSX has launchd and I don't see anyone complaining about that.

it werks

The luddites that unironically use Linux as a desktop OS don't like it because it's too easy. People with actual work mostly like it.

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

it kills the simplicity that is linux.
linux will never win on the desktop because it will basically be windows by the time it gets popular anyway.
it might be nice for datacenter sysadmins but individual desktop users shouldn't want it. it adds unnecessary complexity, obfuscation and insecurity. kernel developers don't care because it's a user space thing. big companies like red hat care because they can wrangle control away from small users. systemd killed the illusion that linux was a community and people's os.

/thread

Literally 500th thread on this topic, literally browse around and inform yourself instead of asking stupid, menial questions that you can just google if you have half a brain

You want it.

old pasta, unable to argument yourself right?

>it kills the simplicity that is linux.

Fucking buggy scripts was never the simplicity of Linux

>linux will never win on the desktop

Linux will never win on the desktop period, not even OSX was able to make Microsoft sweat, the major uptake is in enterprise and developers which is why Microsoft is scrambling to provide a Linux environment on Windows.

>it might be nice for datacenter sysadmins but individual desktop users shouldn't want it. it adds unnecessary complexity, obfuscation and insecurity.

It's nice for distro maintainers as well, which is why it has seen such fast adoption, and for individual desktop users it doesn't matter at all, it's certainly no more obfuscated or insecure than the shit it replaces.

>big companies like red hat care because they can wrangle control away from small users.

LOL, why the fuck would Red Hat give a shit about small users and their 'control' ??? Their competition are other big companies offering the same services, and systemd does not help them here at all since all other companies can offer systemd support (and do!), it's fully open source under copyleft and co-developed by lots of people outside of Red Hat.

>systemd killed the illusion that linux was a community and people's os.

This makes zero sense, ANYONE can pick up Linux and create their own distro built upon ANY components they choose. Surprise, people do, and there are lots of distros that does not use systemd, there are even distros that doesn't use glibc, gcc etc.

user, I wrote that pasta.

The real red pill is that it’s pretty good and it along with Wayland can unironically lead to the yotld

Learn it, because if you are going to work in a professional environment, not some shitty hobbyst garbage unpaid project like most people here, you will use a MODERN LINUX DISTRO that has the best service manager ever created: systemd

>Fucking buggy scripts was never the simplicity of Linux
so because some init scripts had a few issues when you try to scale to thousands of nodes that means you throw the whole thing out and replace it with a very un-unlx layer. that doesn't make sense.

>Linux will never win on the desktop period
Not everyone needs windows. i just saw a library with linux terminals for example. people i work with, other developers use linux on their desktops every day.

>which is why it has seen such fast adoption
it got fast adaptation because people weren't given a choice.

>LOL, why the fuck would Red Hat give a shit about small users and their 'control' ???
they shouldn't but back in the day it didn't matter what red hat wanted because they were just one player in a sea of developers. now they dictate what happens in the entire ecosystem

>and there are lots of distros that does not use systemd,
nope, there aren't. i know because i've searched for them. i use devuan, which is decent but is marginal and very unpopular. i use slackware too but the situation there is even more dire. gentoo is more of a toy. all distros based off debian, red hat and arch all use systemd. that's effectively the overwhelming super majority.

as an embedded developer, my biggest concern with systemd is with embedded linux deveices. systemd adds a whole host of problems for highly resource constrained devices. depending on the project requirements, at worst it ads yet another subsystem that as to be tuned, secured and accounted for. at best it can be ditched wholesale. either way, you suffer from a brain dead design that breaks a 40+ year software philosophy that has served billions of people and devices. it's only getting worse, "systemd" as a concept is growing its tentacles into all parts of the system and soon it wont be possible to live without it. at at that point we'll need linux to die so something else can take it's place.

Again, fpbp

>people i work with, other developers use linux on their desktops every day.

Which is exactly what I said, developers / professionals increasingly use Linux (even on the desktop) which is why Microsoft is creating a Linux environment on Windows to not lose all developer mindshare (particularly with all enterprise moving to the cloud which is 99.9% Linux). With the average user desktop though, Linux will never win, it will at best compete with OSX.

>it got fast adaptation because people weren't given a choice.

People had the same choice they've always had, which is to vote with their feet if the distro they are using no longer appeals to them. Your distro maintainers do not owe you anything because you happen to use their hard unpaid work. 99.9% don't give a shit if it's systemd or init scripts.

>they shouldn't but back in the day it didn't matter what red hat wanted because they were just one player in a sea of developers. now they dictate what happens in the entire ecosystem

Bullshit, that's the beauty of FOSS, they can't dictate anything, they can only produce solutions and put them in their own distros, and if the solutions are better than the existing ones, they will be adopted.

>nope, there aren't. i know because i've searched for them. i use devuan,

Gentoo is hardly a toy, Debian only defaults to systemd, you don't need to use it, Void Linux also comes directly to mind.

>as an embedded developer,

Why not just use something like Busybox ?

>at at that point we'll need linux to die so something else can take it's place.

Are you retarded ? Linux is not bound to systemd, systemd is bound to Linux, you will always be able to use whatever init and other components you want with Linux, JUST LIKE YOU CAN NOW. Also systemd is not the end all of init+plumbing, it will eventually be replaced by something better, it won't be replaced by init scripts though, that ship has sailed.

>muh systemd

I'll take making torvalds angry over writing init scripts

like you've ever wrote an init script

Tried Antix, seems decent. Fucking shitty DE & File manager though

idk a lot about linux but i like system d purerly for the fact you can turn any piece of software into a service with a small text file

"When it comes to systemd, you may expect me to have lots of colourful opinions, and I just don't," Torvalds told iTWire in an interview. "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and laptop both run it.

In a reference to a spat he had with Kay Sievers, one of the main developers of systemd, Torvalds added: "Now, I don't get along with some of the developers and think they are a bit too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, but I'm also very much not in the camp of people who hate the very thought of systemd."

systemd sucks. Just install Artix.

fud never sleeps.