this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
727 points (95.2% liked)

linuxmemes

21189 readers
516 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] NoXzema@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'd argue systemd has bad, borderline incorrect design. I didn't like SysV because it caused inconsistencies and hard to understand processes. systemd fixed the inconsistencies but the rest is sort of hacked together bullshit that developers play wackamole with. That hackery is the reason it can't be used in Docker for example. It has a complicated parser for a language that's basically a DSL that doesn't really solve the problem of complexity for the user. It requires a whole slew of random non-sense to work and it feels like stars have to align perfectly for things to function. It encourages bad behavior like making everything socket activated for literally no reason.

    Compared to SysV, I'll take systemd. I don't find it ideal at all though. It's serviceable... much like how Windows services are serviceable. S6 is I think what the ideal init would look like. I'm more impressed with it's execline and utilities suite but that's another story.

    The only thing I think systemd did right is handling cgroups.

    [–] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

    Struggling to think of what purpose systemd would serve in docker..

    [–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

    Some docker containers come with systemd. Of note, the RedHat ubi8-init and ubi9-init containers. Not that they're wonderful and perfectly open, but that it is possible and available.

    [–] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

    OpenRC handles cgroups too AFAIK

    [–] maryjayjay@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

    If you think you need systemd in a container, then you don't understand containers

    [–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
    [–] maryjayjay@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

    Container is not a VM