I thought all systemd haters would have died by now due to old age. At this rare chance, I have a question: How did it feel to live together with actual dinosaurs?

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago

I finally gave up the hate and embraced the poeterring-ing a few years ago. Can confirm I de-aged by 15 years as a result.

[–] TheCheddarCheese@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Why do people hate systemd anyway? I'm not that tech-savvy but I've always used it and I don't recall ever having a problem with it

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I think it's largely a combination of curmudgeons that hate change and people who are strict Unix ideologues. systemd, while being objectively better in many ways is a monolith that does more than one thing. This violates some of the Unix program philosophies (small programs that do one thing). The truth is that the script-based inits were terrible for dependency management, which is something that systemd explicitly addresses and is probably one of its greatest strengths, IMO.

EDIT: Corrected capitalization.

[–] jyte@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

On a side note, it's systemd, no damn uppercase D at the end.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Good point. Fixed.

[–] msage@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's the main strength, and for that it deserves praise.

For the feature creep that goes into it, and everything hard requiring systemd stuff (way beyond just the init system) just to start, no thanks.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's very fair. Having managed system services for custom application stacks with hard dependencies on one another, that strength is worth it to me.

I don't mean to come across as saying that the Unix philosophy is wrong. Just horses for courses. Systems where there is a likelihood of interdependent daemons should probably consider systemd. Where that's not an issue or complexity is low, more Unix-like inits can still be a solid choice because of their limited scoping and easy modification.

[–] msage@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago

Again, init system is OK.

Suddenly logind, networkd, resolvd, timesyncd, and every other systemd subsystem is way too much inside the one supposed init system.

[–] black0ut@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago

It's slow and heavy, and it does too many things. It's a monolithic piece of code so big it's getting too difficult to maintain, so it has more vulnerabilities than other alternatives. It's also taking over the whole system, to the point where Linux systems will soon be Systemd/Linux instead of GNU/Linux.

It's also developed and funded mainly by Microsoft, which is also something people don't really like. Microsoft are trying to make it similar to Windows in some ways, which makes it way more difficult to debug random errors.

And it doesn't follow the UNIX guidelines, which is just the cherry on top.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Calm down Lennart. Also, upstart was better and not ancient.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Upstart was better, but even Ubuntu, who was by the creators of upstart (Canonical) decided to switch to systemd after using upstart for a bit?

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I don’t know why. Upstart really was better.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 4 points 8 months ago

What made it better?

[–] tux0r@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

Because it was a shameless copy of SMF which is also great.