Because they can.
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
321 points (93.5% liked)
linuxmemes
20880 readers
2 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
For the good of all of us
Except the ones who are dead
But there's no sense crying after every mistake.
You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Me using runit, I agree
- OpenRC just feels nice
- Runit is simple
- S6 is really fucking fast
- Some distros (e.g. Guix, Void, Gentoo) come with non-systemd init systems by default, but I use them for other reasons
As for why I sometimes use musl, I like BSD. Also, Alpine Linux uses it by default, and most glibc software I've tried works just fine with gcompat.
I had to debug dns issues with a wm. Was disgusted what Systemd all does what it shouldn't.
Musl was fine until i had to install the one blob most people hate and love, Steam.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I use distros with systemd but damn, pretty soon it's not gnu/linux anymore, it'll be systemd/linux. systemd already manages services, bootloader, dns and networking. Maybe they'll replace coreutils next and the transition is completed.
Linux is becoming more akin to BSD with the introduction of systemd.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Gentoo comes with OpenRC as default so I roll with it. And it's simple and it works.
Plus the idea of having to randomly wait for some obscure stuff to block for a minute the boot/shutdown is not my thing.
The cool thing with Gentoo is that you can just decide one day to switch to systemd and it's about as easy as changing your profile and updating your system (and maybe recompiling your kernel)
load more comments
(7 replies)
I like how simple and fast runit is. And the added security is nice.
For a while I had an Asus laptop, and no matter what, it seemed to not want to work properly with systemd-based distros. It would hang on-boot about 95+% of the time, I'd hard shut-off, restart, repeat.
On a whim, I tried Void Linux (runit) on it. And for whatever reason, it worked.
People that complain about people not running systemd. Why does it bother you so much? :P
I'm wondering why people do things that don't seem profitable from my point of view
SysV init works more reliably, is smaller, does just one job and is much, much better architected.
SystemD tends to fail if you do anything out of the ordinary, is massively bloated, has it's claws into far too many parts of the system, is IMHO poorly architected, the many of the individual components are poorly designed and the whole thing is a huge, and utterly unnecessary, attack surface.
SystemD is probably adaquate if you just want to use your machine in the most basic way, but as soon as you try to do anything beyond that you start running into the rough edges and bad design decisions that it's plagued with.
Could you elaborate on this? As someone who uses SystemD extensively on workstations and servers for spawning and managing both system-level and user-level services, I do find minimal issues overall with SystemD minus some certain functionalities such as socket spawning/respawning.
Of course some of default SystemD's housekeeping services do suck and I replace them with others. I would like to see the ability to just remove those services outright from my systems as separate packages since they do remain useless, but it isn't that big of an issue.
I also use systemd a lot and it baffles me people can claim sysvinit was more reliable with a straight face.
Half the time I restarted MySQL in the sysvinit days (pre-upstart as well), it would fail to stop it then try to start a new instance of it with the old one still running and the only way to fix it was to manually stop the other instance.
Process management is like the one thing systemd really does well thanks to cgroups, it's impossible for it to lose track of processes because the process lied about its pidfile.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The developer of SystemD was mildly rude to some people back in 2009
That means everything he makes is pure evil by definition and explanations as to why it's bad will be invented post-hoc to make it make sense.
I can actually configure and understand everything the UNIX way, which is actually important to me, because I do some wacky shit with my system + I'm a developer, I physically need to understand my system so I can debug it when it starts to eat shit
Although, seriously, if you're not a developer and don't intend on doing something specific with your system, just pick a mainstream distro and roll. I install Mint MATE or Ubuntu on my secondary systems too.
At this point i don't care anymore if my system has systemd or whatever, as long it's works i don't have complaint
Maybe back when I'm still young i will agree with majority linux enthusiasm that systemd is bloat, GUI is bloat, or whatever. But now as long it's work & can do job properly i don't care or even care
Life is bloat.
Jokes aside, GUI really is bloat. Especially when it's made by a corporate company with absolute dogshit development practices.
On a more serious note, systemd is bloat. With all of you new kids coming over to this side, start with the right way: the runit way. Also compile Gentoo whilst you're at it.
Obligatory /s if anyone is offended, you bunch of snowflakes
/s is bloat, say it like you mean it!
I would, but I'm 2 years old and care about attention on Lemmy. I got downvoted already.
Maybe votes are bloat. I need to change my mentality
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hate to be that guy, but all those articles are 5 years or older. Have people had more recent complaints about systemd or did that movement that complains about it kinda move on?
People don't need more recent complaints when those complaints are still relevant today.
By importance, descending:
First, I don't like people promoting systemd. I don't need it more than other init systems. It's about picking the right group.
Second, I want a simple distribution so I use Void, which famously uses runit. It's about being lazy.
Third, I don't like the idea of it sprouting dependencies which it shouldn't. It's about paranoia. See recent news with a backdoor which wouldn't work if not for this.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I'm not an anti-systemd extremist. I use Void because it is a simple distro that doesn't break as often as Arch does, while also being very up-to-date.
I do have some things I dislike about systemd though which is why I will continue avoiding it in the future.
- It doesn't follow the Unix Philosophy. This is a big problem for me, I want to be able to switch out different parts of my system as I please. Systemd is a collection of projects that are all so deeply integrated that you can't use them without also running the Systemd init system. And now Desktop Environments are starting to depend on Logind for example and there's no alternative for non-systemd users. (Except Elogind but that's just Logind ripped out of SystemD)
- It's bloated and has many features I don't use. I just need an init system to start all my services at boot and restart them if they fail. Nothing more
Also using a Distro without Systemd is not really that hard
load more comments
(1 replies)
Does Alpine Linux count as "running"?
SystemD just isn't necessary for every Linux install.
Linux has thousands of uses that aren't "running on bare metal on my customized gaming rig at my computer desk to play steam games and pretend to look like Mr. Robot"
load more comments
(1 replies)
My initial experience with Linux was without systemD and I didn't like it when Debian switched to it. Void is comfy enough.
Staying lean in my init is a hobby
Dunno...
Wanna ask my OpenWRT router that?
Also, is Android not Linux anymore?
Sysvinit on gentoo here. Its so simple and clean, all can be managed and hacked via bash scripts.
I see no benefits in my use cases for systemd. Boot speed is unneeded, service auto-restart is done via Monit, anything else I don't need.
This is true for all my server -and- all my workstations and laptops as well.
Systemd never solved a problem needed to be solved to start with.
Now that it also does coffee and cream for you, i start seeing some benefits like auto-restart services. Was it worthwhile? Meh, dunno.
At first it seemed another case of "I am too young and I want stuff done my way just because" and redhat shoved it down everybody throath to gain marked dominance. That they did.
At least now systemd looks like mature and finally start making sense. I was even contemplating testing a migration on one server.
Then I remembered, I like freedom of choice and keeping up being an old fart, so I didn't (yet).
(No, for Wayland and network manager I think they are both welcome and needed from the start).
It didn't help the main Dev suckass attitude, that didn't made friends.
I like being able to see my logs without waiting 20 minutes, knowing who started what without playing cat and mouse with random processes and being able to change something without going through multiple levels of merged configurations files from three different sources.
I also enjoy tools that were developed over decades and not rewritten from scratch reintroducing long-solved issues.
view more: next ›