3 ms·

> Users crying about Linux desktop all the time, but systemd has a huge part making the situation way better. Definitely. Maybe it's not great that GNOME has a

by zaro 7y ago

> Users crying about Linux desktop all the time, but systemd has a huge part making the situation way better. Definitely. Maybe it's not great that GNOME has a hard dependency on systemd ( I personally don't care), but most people don't appreciate how much things have improved on the desktop with systemd.

silversconfused 7y ago
I've been using linux since kernel 2.2. Deployed hundreds if not thousands of workstations for home users and developers. Trust me, I've seen desktop ups and downs, and I disagree. Systemd works until it doesn't, and then it's an unfixable lost cause and you reload it like a naughty 9x box.
- zaro 7y ago
  Yeah, same for me. Since about 2.2. And I remember patching init.d scripts on Debian, adding sleep 5 In the network script, because you know our service had to have eth0 up and configured. So it's not like the old init system was perfect either :) Or when I was building VM appliance with dB inside, and I was reading the news about systemd and how it would allow cpu and ram limits per service and thinking how if I had it it would save me from weeks worth of work (yes IBM DB2 is total crap when you run it in VM). and so on. When I look back of all the stupid things I had to take care of and in systemd are just a config away, I can't help but wonder why people dislike it so much.
  - silversconfused 7y ago
    You were able to do those hacks because it was open to you at run time. You COULD fix it. Now if it breaks and there's no fix, you may as well have used boxed software because your options are only to wait for a fix or find something else. Honestly, I'd have very little problem with systemd if it was not written in a compiled language. Losing that flexibility sucks. In another comment I noted that this is obviously a divide between the hobbyists and the 9-5 linux users. I am both, so this is particularly sucky.

by zaro 7y ago

silversconfused 7y ago

I've been using linux since kernel 2.2. Deployed hundreds if not thousands of workstations for home users and developers. Trust me, I've seen desktop ups and downs, and I disagree. Systemd works until it doesn't, and then it's an unfixable lost cause and you reload it like a naughty 9x box.

zaro 7y ago
Yeah, same for me. Since about 2.2. And I remember patching init.d scripts on Debian, adding sleep 5 In the network script, because you know our service had to have eth0 up and configured. So it's not like the old init system was perfect either :) Or when I was building VM appliance with dB inside, and I was reading the news about systemd and how it would allow cpu and ram limits per service and thinking how if I had it it would save me from weeks worth of work (yes IBM DB2 is total crap when you run it in VM). and so on. When I look back of all the stupid things I had to take care of and in systemd are just a config away, I can't help but wonder why people dislike it so much.
- silversconfused 7y ago
  You were able to do those hacks because it was open to you at run time. You COULD fix it. Now if it breaks and there's no fix, you may as well have used boxed software because your options are only to wait for a fix or find something else. Honestly, I'd have very little problem with systemd if it was not written in a compiled language. Losing that flexibility sucks. In another comment I noted that this is obviously a divide between the hobbyists and the 9-5 linux users. I am both, so this is particularly sucky.