The best example of suck, and that forced you to restart Linux machines after an update, something that was not the case before... you little ducklings...
Imho its not necessary for the average user, adding too much complexity.
For example, I tried to config gpsd to use another port, nothing would work; systemd quietly overrides gpsd's configfile and required additional systemd incantations to change what should have been easy. And the man pages are a mess
And journalctl makes me want to pull my hair out; just let me grep a regular file - discovering namespaces is a nightmare
It’s at odds with the philosophy of do one thing and do it well. Its monolithic feature set pushes out smaller contributors and leads to increased reliance on a singular package. This tends to self reinforce. I also use systemd in my current distro so not sure where I stand on this but it’s a fair concern.
Before systemd I had Redhat machines with 3 to 4 years of uptime, and now you need to restart Linux after updates....while Windows people rarely and they laugh at you...
If you use the command line to do the update there is no need to reboot, however, the issues that the offline update is trying to solve still stands.
Some programs can crash when all their files are suddenly swapped for new ones. I've seen multiple linux systems bork themselves during an update because the update itself caused the desktop session to crash, which caused the update process to be interrupted just as it was modifying some crucial files, thus rendering the system unbootable.
The systemd init isn't half an operating system any more than the coreutils "ls" utility is half a userspace. The systemd project has many different components but they're independent, they are not all literally part of the init system.
You're the one who brought up init systems. Like you said, systemd is a huge project; an init system is just one of its components.
> he systemd project has many different components but they're independent
They _are_ dependent. It's one codebas, and even if you somehow separated it - you would still only have systemd-specific, systemd-dependent replacements for _actual_ independent components.
They all depend on systemd and won't work with anything else, nor on any other operating system either.
>> The proof this site is misnamed is that a post criticizing systemd gets downvoted, probably by people who have never questioned why an [[ init system ]] needs to become half the operating system.
So no, I didn't bring it up.
I find the whole argument kind of dumb anyway. People talk about this as if it was a violation of the "Unix Philosophy" when Unix and BSD are developed even moreso in the same way - the init system is sitting in the same repo as the libc, the kernel, and the entire rest of the OS. Linux is alone amongst operating systems in making core system components swappable like to that degree in the first place. It's fine to like that kind of flexibility, but a bit silly to act as though that approach is fundamentally superior. If you want to use non-systemd tools, use a non-systemd distro, that is your choice. Just quit whining about 99.9999% of the other software users on the planet not catering to it.
> If you want to use non-systemd tools, use a non-systemd distro, that is your choice.
No, it is not my choice, because I'm not talking about my PC at home, but rather what organizations use - commercial companies, universities, schools, NGOs etc. And also what users are taught to handle and work with.
But it's not even that: I want systemd to be _dropped_ as a default part of the main Linux distributions. I want only the people who explicitly prefer systemd, to use systemd, and not the rest.
As for the "dumb argument" etc. - what you're saying is that because the different BSD distros are monolithic, then not only should Linux become that way, but - all of the lower-level Linux userspace, above the kernel, should just be handed over to the benevolent oligarchy of the systemd people.
That's a bad idea, both in principle, and also in practice, due to the innumerable problematic design and implementation choices systemd has taken - which developers and sysadmins/power-users did not mandate, agree to or support.
I think the systemd people state that it is more than an init system, maybe your expectation of it needs to be adjusted. "systemd is a software suite for system and service management on Linux built to unify service configuration and behavior across Linux distributions." One of the great things about Linux is that you can always choose a distro that fits your ideals (or whatever else).
It's absolutely off-topic to moan about systemd on every post about Linux.
If there was a complaint about how systemd complicated builds and tests in a specific way the commenter could name, that'd be valid. Just finger-wagging is tiring after how many, 10 years?
We moan about Microsoft's horrid choices with its operating choices, already for, what, let's say 40 years now? 45? When they cut it out, start using standards, stop forcing crap onto their users (not all of Windows is crap; a lot of it is quite solid), stop with the spying and surveillance, and of course make the code FOSS, then we'll stop the moaning.
It's similar for systemd. It's a poor architectural choice and it needs to be undone. And that's ignoring the personal drama surrounding it over the years which, indeed, needs to be let go by now.
As for topicality: This post is about the "sausage" that is a distribution. Following this metaphor and mentioning a problem with a certain kind of sausage is on-topic.
One of the best things to happen to the Linux ecosystem in a long time.
The best example of suck, and that forced you to restart Linux machines after an update, something that was not the case before... you little ducklings...
https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/
https://without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Arguments_against...
That's most of the entire planet using Linux.
And social media and fast food...does not mean its good for you...
I’m out of the loop on this, not trying to ignite a holy war, but what’s the gist of the anti-systemd stance?
Imho its not necessary for the average user, adding too much complexity.
For example, I tried to config gpsd to use another port, nothing would work; systemd quietly overrides gpsd's configfile and required additional systemd incantations to change what should have been easy. And the man pages are a mess
And journalctl makes me want to pull my hair out; just let me grep a regular file - discovering namespaces is a nightmare
It’s at odds with the philosophy of do one thing and do it well. Its monolithic feature set pushes out smaller contributors and leads to increased reliance on a singular package. This tends to self reinforce. I also use systemd in my current distro so not sure where I stand on this but it’s a fair concern.
Everything on modern OSes is at odds with the Unix philosophy ("do one thing well"), including *nix.
ls has more flags than a Soviet military parade.
Before systemd I had Redhat machines with 3 to 4 years of uptime, and now you need to restart Linux after updates....while Windows people rarely and they laugh at you...
If you use the command line to do the update there is no need to reboot, however, the issues that the offline update is trying to solve still stands.
Some programs can crash when all their files are suddenly swapped for new ones. I've seen multiple linux systems bork themselves during an update because the update itself caused the desktop session to crash, which caused the update process to be interrupted just as it was modifying some crucial files, thus rendering the system unbootable.
New thing bad
It’s 16 years old and just as old are the criticisms?????
Is that a technical argument for the excellence of Windows products? :-))
Just use another distro without systemd, no one cares.
People who dont care use Windows.
[flagged]
The systemd init isn't half an operating system any more than the coreutils "ls" utility is half a userspace. The systemd project has many different components but they're independent, they are not all literally part of the init system.
You're the one who brought up init systems. Like you said, systemd is a huge project; an init system is just one of its components.
> he systemd project has many different components but they're independent
They _are_ dependent. It's one codebas, and even if you somehow separated it - you would still only have systemd-specific, systemd-dependent replacements for _actual_ independent components.
They all depend on systemd and won't work with anything else, nor on any other operating system either.
This is the post I responded to
>> The proof this site is misnamed is that a post criticizing systemd gets downvoted, probably by people who have never questioned why an [[ init system ]] needs to become half the operating system.
So no, I didn't bring it up.
I find the whole argument kind of dumb anyway. People talk about this as if it was a violation of the "Unix Philosophy" when Unix and BSD are developed even moreso in the same way - the init system is sitting in the same repo as the libc, the kernel, and the entire rest of the OS. Linux is alone amongst operating systems in making core system components swappable like to that degree in the first place. It's fine to like that kind of flexibility, but a bit silly to act as though that approach is fundamentally superior. If you want to use non-systemd tools, use a non-systemd distro, that is your choice. Just quit whining about 99.9999% of the other software users on the planet not catering to it.
> If you want to use non-systemd tools, use a non-systemd distro, that is your choice.
No, it is not my choice, because I'm not talking about my PC at home, but rather what organizations use - commercial companies, universities, schools, NGOs etc. And also what users are taught to handle and work with.
But it's not even that: I want systemd to be _dropped_ as a default part of the main Linux distributions. I want only the people who explicitly prefer systemd, to use systemd, and not the rest.
As for the "dumb argument" etc. - what you're saying is that because the different BSD distros are monolithic, then not only should Linux become that way, but - all of the lower-level Linux userspace, above the kernel, should just be handed over to the benevolent oligarchy of the systemd people.
That's a bad idea, both in principle, and also in practice, due to the innumerable problematic design and implementation choices systemd has taken - which developers and sysadmins/power-users did not mandate, agree to or support.
I think the systemd people state that it is more than an init system, maybe your expectation of it needs to be adjusted. "systemd is a software suite for system and service management on Linux built to unify service configuration and behavior across Linux distributions." One of the great things about Linux is that you can always choose a distro that fits your ideals (or whatever else).
[dead]
It's probably being downvoted and flagged because it's off topic to the post and adds no substance which is against site rules.
Its not off topic, as reply to the comment, the post is replying.
It's absolutely off-topic to moan about systemd on every post about Linux.
If there was a complaint about how systemd complicated builds and tests in a specific way the commenter could name, that'd be valid. Just finger-wagging is tiring after how many, 10 years?
We moan about Microsoft's horrid choices with its operating choices, already for, what, let's say 40 years now? 45? When they cut it out, start using standards, stop forcing crap onto their users (not all of Windows is crap; a lot of it is quite solid), stop with the spying and surveillance, and of course make the code FOSS, then we'll stop the moaning.
It's similar for systemd. It's a poor architectural choice and it needs to be undone. And that's ignoring the personal drama surrounding it over the years which, indeed, needs to be let go by now.
As for topicality: This post is about the "sausage" that is a distribution. Following this metaphor and mentioning a problem with a certain kind of sausage is on-topic.