5 ms·

> nobody's enthusiastic The vast majority of people are fine with it, it's just the loud minority opposes it. The bulk of linux userbase is systemd only: Cent

> nobody's enthusiastic The vast majority of people are fine with it, it's just the loud minority opposes it. The bulk of linux userbase is systemd only: Centos, Ubuntu, Arch, Opensuse, Fedora. I think these 5 have already 90+% of installations.

kijin 7y ago
Fine doesn't mean enthusiastic. Most people are just going along with the trend with no strong preference either way. I'm actually quite fond of systemd now that I'm used to it, but I wouldn't have "moved" to systemd if it wasn't for the major distros making the choice for me.
- oaiey 7y ago
  Are not the distros who design the composition of the actual overall system the exact right people to make this call? In an ideal world (and by your comment I assume you are close to it) you do not care or maybe even realize which startup system the system utilizes.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    That is only true for a casual user's desktop, maybe. If you're a power user or a server admin, you will likely be setting up services, or diagnosing their failures, at some point - and then the features and the ergonomics of the init system are very relevant.
    - oaiey 7y ago
      True, the server admins are indeed seeing systemd, however they choose the distribution before.
- thayne 7y ago
  I suspect most people don't really care. People who are enthusiastic are the ones driving the move to systemd. People who hate it, complain about it.
usr1106 7y ago
Debian has certainly more than 10%. Especially in small server space or embedded Linux many just install Debian because its a simple and stable option. That does not change your point about systemd adoption. Debian has been in practice systemd only for how many years?
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  > Debian has certainly more than 10% And way more than 10% if we consider that Ubuntu is built on Debian.
  - asdfaoeu 7y ago
    Ubuntu doesn't have sysvinit so isn't relevant here.
- the_why_of_y 7y ago
  Debian has not in fact been systemd only; the GR that is being discussed in this thread replaces a decision by the Technical Committee from 2014: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg00001.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg00... For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason. However, in practice Debian users tend not to replace systemd's PID1 with the sysvinit-core package, as it is installed on a negligible fraction of Debian systems. https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd%2C+sysvinit-core&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&show_old=on&show_recent=on&show_nofiles=on&want_percent=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd%2C+s...
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    I'm not sure you can rely on popcon to make decisions like that.. anyone who doesn't explicitly opt in, and anyone who installs on a system with limited internet access (i.e. probably most enterprise users) won't be counted.
ckastner 7y ago
> The vast majority of people are fine with it Exactly. As confirmed by this vote.
krzyk 7y ago
systemd looks like it was forced somehow on distros. I was happy with sysvinit, no issues with it as a simple user on laptop. But now I have issues with systemd once a month, I really hate that thing and don't see any benefits.
- majewsky 7y ago
  > systemd looks like it was forced somehow on distros. Distros adopted systemd because it solves a huge waste of time that distributors have to deal with: maintaining init scripts. systemd unit files are distro-agnostic and can thus be maintained upstream. (There's also other useless idiosyncrasies that systemd plowed over, so there's even less work for distributors to do. Or rather, more time to do actually interesting work to differentiate their distribution.)
  - despera 7y ago
    Package maintainers have far, far worse problems to deal with than some shell scripts that are trivial most of the time for alternative init systems like openRC. Also, hopefully, no maintainer in his (security-wise) right mind use upstream provided system files as-is.

kijin 7y ago

Fine doesn't mean enthusiastic. Most people are just going along with the trend with no strong preference either way. I'm actually quite fond of systemd now that I'm used to it, but I wouldn't have "moved" to systemd if it wasn't for the major distros making the choice for me.

oaiey 7y ago
Are not the distros who design the composition of the actual overall system the exact right people to make this call? In an ideal world (and by your comment I assume you are close to it) you do not care or maybe even realize which startup system the system utilizes.
- int_19h 7y ago
  That is only true for a casual user's desktop, maybe. If you're a power user or a server admin, you will likely be setting up services, or diagnosing their failures, at some point - and then the features and the ergonomics of the init system are very relevant.
  - oaiey 7y ago
    True, the server admins are indeed seeing systemd, however they choose the distribution before.
thayne 7y ago
I suspect most people don't really care. People who are enthusiastic are the ones driving the move to systemd. People who hate it, complain about it.

usr1106 7y ago

Debian has certainly more than 10%. Especially in small server space or embedded Linux many just install Debian because its a simple and stable option. That does not change your point about systemd adoption. Debian has been in practice systemd only for how many years?

PopeDotNinja 7y ago
> Debian has certainly more than 10% And way more than 10% if we consider that Ubuntu is built on Debian.
- asdfaoeu 7y ago
  Ubuntu doesn't have sysvinit so isn't relevant here.
the_why_of_y 7y ago
Debian has not in fact been systemd only; the GR that is being discussed in this thread replaces a decision by the Technical Committee from 2014: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg00001.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg00... For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason. However, in practice Debian users tend not to replace systemd's PID1 with the sysvinit-core package, as it is installed on a negligible fraction of Debian systems. https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd%2C+sysvinit-core&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&show_old=on&show_recent=on&show_nofiles=on&want_percent=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd%2C+s...
- Karunamon 7y ago
  I'm not sure you can rely on popcon to make decisions like that.. anyone who doesn't explicitly opt in, and anyone who installs on a system with limited internet access (i.e. probably most enterprise users) won't be counted.

ckastner 7y ago

> The vast majority of people are fine with it Exactly. As confirmed by this vote.

krzyk 7y ago

systemd looks like it was forced somehow on distros. I was happy with sysvinit, no issues with it as a simple user on laptop. But now I have issues with systemd once a month, I really hate that thing and don't see any benefits.

majewsky 7y ago
> systemd looks like it was forced somehow on distros. Distros adopted systemd because it solves a huge waste of time that distributors have to deal with: maintaining init scripts. systemd unit files are distro-agnostic and can thus be maintained upstream. (There's also other useless idiosyncrasies that systemd plowed over, so there's even less work for distributors to do. Or rather, more time to do actually interesting work to differentiate their distribution.)
- despera 7y ago
  Package maintainers have far, far worse problems to deal with than some shell scripts that are trivial most of the time for alternative init systems like openRC. Also, hopefully, no maintainer in his (security-wise) right mind use upstream provided system files as-is.