4 ms·

It impresses me that the hate for systemd persists even after so much time has passed. I thought it was just inertia. I see systemd as a framework to define an

by jolmg 8y ago

It impresses me that the hate for systemd persists even after so much time has passed. I thought it was just inertia. I see systemd as a framework to define and control services that is much more robust than the old system that relied on scripting conventions. Why the hate? What's people's ideal here?

enriquto 8y ago
I am a newcomer to hating systemd. At first I was indifferent, an init system cannot be so bad after all. Fuck that. In the last two years, they have changed at least three times the way that the option to delete the /tmp dir is specified. I understood the configuration, edited it so that it did not delete the /tmp dir automatically; and then, upon an innocent update the old config is overridden and the /tmp dir is magically cleaned! This is infuriating. I have never felt actual, physical, rage against any software in 25 years of using computers. That is, until I met systemd! I do not really care whether the init system is written in C or scripts. But please, allow me to follow a simple logic. Scripts maybe are not very elegant, but I can follow the init process end-to-end and understand where it does that. I have honestly tried to do that with systemd and it is impossible. And I am quite proficient in reading C code and bash scripts. I have a lot of patience and I am willing to spend a few hours of my free time to understand how a program is configured, by reading code if necessary. But this stuff is just batshit crazy. I can hear in my mind the smug voices of systemd developers saying "but why do you even want to not delete the tmp files". That's not the fucking point motherfuckers! I just want to control my computer.
- redsavagefiero 8y ago
  A systemd conceptually is quite a good idea. However systemd is not that systemd. Much rather go with rc.conf + script approach, disable all systemd services, lock selinux against systemd socket activations and run a purpose controlled environment. Avoiding systemd does force one to not use Linux as a desktop..oh well.
  - enriquto 8y ago
    > Avoiding systemd does force one to not use Linux as a desktop Why do you say that? You can even use gnome without systemd, but there are still other desktops.
    - redsavagefiero 8y ago
      I have't looked at it rcently but the last time I checked systemd was the 'nice to have' that was mandatory for some of the software I associate with a fully fuctional desktop which is not just a WM, DE (or not) and basic applications like xterm , vim, etc...But you are right. You can run the linux desktop like its 2007 without systemd on select distributions without screwing around too much...of course don't add new software without researching dependencies and default build options or you may end up with the worst of systemd dependencies anyway. At that point I just run KDE on FreeBSD.
naniwaduni 8y ago
The big problem with relying on scripting conventions isn't the scripting; it's the lack of a solid foundation to build those scripts from, requiring each script to separately implement service management, probably by copy-paste. What systemd gets right on that front is that you do need a daemon, preferably rooted in init, to spawn services so that they run in a clean, consistent environment. Beyond that, systemd's extensive scope creep makes the system less robust and more complex than it could be, compared to predecessors which some of us have been working with over a decade, such as the daemontools family (runit, s6, nosh &c.) of supervision systems.

by jolmg 8y ago

enriquto 8y ago

I am a newcomer to hating systemd. At first I was indifferent, an init system cannot be so bad after all. Fuck that. In the last two years, they have changed at least three times the way that the option to delete the /tmp dir is specified. I understood the configuration, edited it so that it did not delete the /tmp dir automatically; and then, upon an innocent update the old config is overridden and the /tmp dir is magically cleaned! This is infuriating. I have never felt actual, physical, rage against any software in 25 years of using computers. That is, until I met systemd! I do not really care whether the init system is written in C or scripts. But please, allow me to follow a simple logic. Scripts maybe are not very elegant, but I can follow the init process end-to-end and understand where it does that. I have honestly tried to do that with systemd and it is impossible. And I am quite proficient in reading C code and bash scripts. I have a lot of patience and I am willing to spend a few hours of my free time to understand how a program is configured, by reading code if necessary. But this stuff is just batshit crazy. I can hear in my mind the smug voices of systemd developers saying "but why do you even want to not delete the tmp files". That's not the fucking point motherfuckers! I just want to control my computer.

redsavagefiero 8y ago
A systemd conceptually is quite a good idea. However systemd is not that systemd. Much rather go with rc.conf + script approach, disable all systemd services, lock selinux against systemd socket activations and run a purpose controlled environment. Avoiding systemd does force one to not use Linux as a desktop..oh well.
- enriquto 8y ago
  > Avoiding systemd does force one to not use Linux as a desktop Why do you say that? You can even use gnome without systemd, but there are still other desktops.
  - redsavagefiero 8y ago
    I have't looked at it rcently but the last time I checked systemd was the 'nice to have' that was mandatory for some of the software I associate with a fully fuctional desktop which is not just a WM, DE (or not) and basic applications like xterm , vim, etc...But you are right. You can run the linux desktop like its 2007 without systemd on select distributions without screwing around too much...of course don't add new software without researching dependencies and default build options or you may end up with the worst of systemd dependencies anyway. At that point I just run KDE on FreeBSD.

naniwaduni 8y ago

The big problem with relying on scripting conventions isn't the scripting; it's the lack of a solid foundation to build those scripts from, requiring each script to separately implement service management, probably by copy-paste. What systemd gets right on that front is that you do need a daemon, preferably rooted in init, to spawn services so that they run in a clean, consistent environment. Beyond that, systemd's extensive scope creep makes the system less robust and more complex than it could be, compared to predecessors which some of us have been working with over a decade, such as the daemontools family (runit, s6, nosh &c.) of supervision systems.