3 ms·

My argument is remarkably simple. 1. Systemd did not solve any problems I actually had. 2. Systemd introduced problems that I did not have previously. 3. Sys

My argument is remarkably simple. 1. Systemd did not solve any problems I actually had. 2. Systemd introduced problems that I did not have previously. 3. Systemd did not provide me any net benefit, that is, the few benefits it did provide over Upstart/SysV/etc. (easier service configuration and ordering) did not overshadow the issues it caused. Its introduction into my home and professional computing life has been a net negative.

CountSessine 7y ago
Very narcissistic. If it’s so awful for you then don’t use it. But it solved a lot of other peoples problems, like rogue sessions on lab computers and broken executables that accidentally signal() themselves into orphan-hood because SIGHUP is truly one of the dumbest legacies of posix around, maybe just short of posix AIO. Seriously - don’t use it if you hate it so much.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  Yes, my systems are primarily operated for my benefit. This should not be a controversial stance, and certainly not one worth hurling insults about. >Seriously - don’t use it if you hate it so much. Oh how I WISH that were a viable option. Few things would make me happier than that overcomplicated, opinionated, arrogant pile of unsafe code being excised viscera ex machnia from any system I have the misfortune of managing. Sadly I'm stuck with it if I want to run any mainstream Linux distros.
  - CountSessine 7y ago
    Sadly I'm stuck with it if I want to run any mainstream Linux distros. Boohoo! Then man-up and look at all the alternatives out there! You can boot a Linux system with a simple 5-line shell script as /bin/init if you want! You clearly don’t care much about desktop Linux, because those of us that do don’t want a hundred rogue clipboard processes running in the background after we log out. Build a server box with Linux from scratch!
  - cycloptic 7y ago
    What benefit are you really getting from using mainstream distros if you find their choices to be so objectionable and don't agree with their decisions? And have you looked at the state of the kernel or at your CPU lately? I would really suggest not using Linux or any modern x86_64 processor if you are worried about "overcomplicated, opinionated, arrogant piles of unsafe code" at the lowest possible levels of your system.
    - dTal 7y ago
      >What benefit are you really getting from using mainstream distros if you find their choices to be so objectionable and don't agree with their decisions? Well, that's an easy one: popularity = support. I dislike Ubuntu these days, but I run LTS on my work machines because no matter what obscure program I might need in the course of my job, it will almost certainly run on Ubuntu. Build instructions will target Ubuntu. Prebuilt .debs will target Ubuntu. Static binaries, or AppImages, will have been tested on Ubuntu. I get a choice between "install the snap, or build from source?" I can install the snap and get on with my day. It's not inherently better in a technical sense, it's just overwhelmingly easier to swim with the current.
crazy_hombre 7y ago
systemd did make package maintainer's lives a lot easier. We don't often see the shift to systemd from their perspective. They are the ones making the distros so I think they are the ones who really get to say what goes and doesn't go in a distro. They don't have to keep maintaining long init scripts for the hundreds of packages that they are responsible for. Unit files are so much easier to deal with.
tpoindex 7y ago
This, exactly. My first experience with SystemD (Ubuntu 16.04 IIRC) turned into a frustrating experience, mostly around trying to mount a NFS volume in /etc/fstab, defined with 'soft' and 'bg' mount options. SystemD would often fail to mount the volume, and as a result would never fully boot to login prompt. Additionally, on shutdown SystemD would hang again forever trying to unmount that volume. No amount of mount option flag tweaking seemed to make much of a difference, so I simply removed the NFS volume from fstab and manually mounted when I needed it. Happily running MX Linux today and back to mounting NFS in /etc/fstab.

CountSessine 7y ago

Very narcissistic. If it’s so awful for you then don’t use it. But it solved a lot of other peoples problems, like rogue sessions on lab computers and broken executables that accidentally signal() themselves into orphan-hood because SIGHUP is truly one of the dumbest legacies of posix around, maybe just short of posix AIO. Seriously - don’t use it if you hate it so much.

Karunamon 7y ago
Yes, my systems are primarily operated for my benefit. This should not be a controversial stance, and certainly not one worth hurling insults about. >Seriously - don’t use it if you hate it so much. Oh how I WISH that were a viable option. Few things would make me happier than that overcomplicated, opinionated, arrogant pile of unsafe code being excised viscera ex machnia from any system I have the misfortune of managing. Sadly I'm stuck with it if I want to run any mainstream Linux distros.
- CountSessine 7y ago
  Sadly I'm stuck with it if I want to run any mainstream Linux distros. Boohoo! Then man-up and look at all the alternatives out there! You can boot a Linux system with a simple 5-line shell script as /bin/init if you want! You clearly don’t care much about desktop Linux, because those of us that do don’t want a hundred rogue clipboard processes running in the background after we log out. Build a server box with Linux from scratch!
- cycloptic 7y ago
  What benefit are you really getting from using mainstream distros if you find their choices to be so objectionable and don't agree with their decisions? And have you looked at the state of the kernel or at your CPU lately? I would really suggest not using Linux or any modern x86_64 processor if you are worried about "overcomplicated, opinionated, arrogant piles of unsafe code" at the lowest possible levels of your system.
  - dTal 7y ago
    >What benefit are you really getting from using mainstream distros if you find their choices to be so objectionable and don't agree with their decisions? Well, that's an easy one: popularity = support. I dislike Ubuntu these days, but I run LTS on my work machines because no matter what obscure program I might need in the course of my job, it will almost certainly run on Ubuntu. Build instructions will target Ubuntu. Prebuilt .debs will target Ubuntu. Static binaries, or AppImages, will have been tested on Ubuntu. I get a choice between "install the snap, or build from source?" I can install the snap and get on with my day. It's not inherently better in a technical sense, it's just overwhelmingly easier to swim with the current.

crazy_hombre 7y ago

systemd did make package maintainer's lives a lot easier. We don't often see the shift to systemd from their perspective. They are the ones making the distros so I think they are the ones who really get to say what goes and doesn't go in a distro. They don't have to keep maintaining long init scripts for the hundreds of packages that they are responsible for. Unit files are so much easier to deal with.

tpoindex 7y ago

This, exactly. My first experience with SystemD (Ubuntu 16.04 IIRC) turned into a frustrating experience, mostly around trying to mount a NFS volume in /etc/fstab, defined with 'soft' and 'bg' mount options. SystemD would often fail to mount the volume, and as a result would never fully boot to login prompt. Additionally, on shutdown SystemD would hang again forever trying to unmount that volume. No amount of mount option flag tweaking seemed to make much of a difference, so I simply removed the NFS volume from fstab and manually mounted when I needed it. Happily running MX Linux today and back to mounting NFS in /etc/fstab.