4 ms·

> As such I found it sad when even Arch fell to the systemd camp. And it's one of the few things it really enforces, it supports 6 different network initialisat

> As such I found it sad when even Arch fell to the systemd camp. And it's one of the few things it really enforces, it supports 6 different network initialisation methods for example, where all other distributions just pick one and go with it. Arch has only supported one init system at all times. We could still have stuck with the sysvinit with hacks to look like openrc, but nobody liked that. The initscripts where a mess to maintain and systemd enabled us to not having to care about these details. If we stuck with the old system, what would the argument be today? "Arch only supports sysvinit! That is not the UNIX philosophy!"? You don't see any complaints on distributions that only support one init which is either runit, s6 or openrc. But when it's systemd somehow people get sad?

akira2501 6y ago
> You don't see any complaints on distributions that only support one init which is either runit, s6 or openrc. But when it's systemd somehow people get sad? Runit will just run 3 scripts then supervise your service directory. _That's it_ and no other choices are made for you. You can compose runit with many other different types of systems according to your own tastes. Systemd, ostensibly also just an init system, ties you to so many other non-init choices that I can understand the feeling of unease people have towards it.
GekkePrutser 6y ago
I agree sysvinit was no longer sufficient for today's needs. The issue I have with systemd was mainly related to its heaviness not really fitting in with Arch's simplicity. And with the products of corporatism seeping through even one the most noncommercial variants of Linux. Basically what cwyers mentioned above. I've been putting up with systemd as all the distributions I use have moved to it, but I never really liked it.. I don't like the way the scripts are so far hidden in the filesystem and I don't like journalctl, I prefer having simple logfiles. I discovered Alpine linux recently as a server distro (previously I thought it was mainly developed for docker containers) and I really took a liking to OpenRC. It reminded me that things could still be simple even in a modern init system. I think it would have been a good choice for Arch, for me it would have been better than systemd. I don't even know the other systems you mention, I'm not an expert on init systems.. My opinion is just that of a user.
- Foxboron 6y ago
  >The issue I have with systemd was mainly related to its heaviness not really fitting in with Arch's simplicity. Arch is a pragmatic distribution first and foremost. If we can build systemd, and ship it as-is to have a complete init, and more features along with it, that is much more enticing then the alternative. > I think it (openrc) would have been a good choice for Arch, for me it would have been better than systemd. It would still entail maintaining some form of initscripts. I don't think most users realize how much of a burden this is, they don't really deal with that part of the system.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    I understand, and it was not my intention to drag the systemd discussion up again. It was just one of the many things I thought of after reading cwyers post which really resonated with me, and the parent article as well. And there are things I do like about systemd, I also have to say. Especially the way you can pass a variable to a server with @, like run 2 instances on different ports. I know very well that the rc scripts were a pain to maintain as I've written some as well in the past. So I really understand the benefit of upstream-provided service configs. The transition to systemd for me as a user was just a bit more difficult. It deviates so much from earlier conventions, and adapting it I found difficult. It enforces a lot more than just the init system. For some reason I always end up having to compile some of the software I use myself, and having to make scripts then. I found this a lot easier with OpenRC than with Systemd (having pretty much no knowledge of either). But anyway I'm just one user and you support millions, I know you're making the right choices for the platform. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me in fact!
    - Foxboron 6y ago
      >and you support millions I'll be amazed if Arch has a million users. Our napkin math using steam user statistics put us on around 500k-600k users.

akira2501 6y ago

> You don't see any complaints on distributions that only support one init which is either runit, s6 or openrc. But when it's systemd somehow people get sad? Runit will just run 3 scripts then supervise your service directory. _That's it_ and no other choices are made for you. You can compose runit with many other different types of systems according to your own tastes. Systemd, ostensibly also just an init system, ties you to so many other non-init choices that I can understand the feeling of unease people have towards it.

GekkePrutser 6y ago

I agree sysvinit was no longer sufficient for today's needs. The issue I have with systemd was mainly related to its heaviness not really fitting in with Arch's simplicity. And with the products of corporatism seeping through even one the most noncommercial variants of Linux. Basically what cwyers mentioned above. I've been putting up with systemd as all the distributions I use have moved to it, but I never really liked it.. I don't like the way the scripts are so far hidden in the filesystem and I don't like journalctl, I prefer having simple logfiles. I discovered Alpine linux recently as a server distro (previously I thought it was mainly developed for docker containers) and I really took a liking to OpenRC. It reminded me that things could still be simple even in a modern init system. I think it would have been a good choice for Arch, for me it would have been better than systemd. I don't even know the other systems you mention, I'm not an expert on init systems.. My opinion is just that of a user.

Foxboron 6y ago
>The issue I have with systemd was mainly related to its heaviness not really fitting in with Arch's simplicity. Arch is a pragmatic distribution first and foremost. If we can build systemd, and ship it as-is to have a complete init, and more features along with it, that is much more enticing then the alternative. > I think it (openrc) would have been a good choice for Arch, for me it would have been better than systemd. It would still entail maintaining some form of initscripts. I don't think most users realize how much of a burden this is, they don't really deal with that part of the system.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  I understand, and it was not my intention to drag the systemd discussion up again. It was just one of the many things I thought of after reading cwyers post which really resonated with me, and the parent article as well. And there are things I do like about systemd, I also have to say. Especially the way you can pass a variable to a server with @, like run 2 instances on different ports. I know very well that the rc scripts were a pain to maintain as I've written some as well in the past. So I really understand the benefit of upstream-provided service configs. The transition to systemd for me as a user was just a bit more difficult. It deviates so much from earlier conventions, and adapting it I found difficult. It enforces a lot more than just the init system. For some reason I always end up having to compile some of the software I use myself, and having to make scripts then. I found this a lot easier with OpenRC than with Systemd (having pretty much no knowledge of either). But anyway I'm just one user and you support millions, I know you're making the right choices for the platform. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me in fact!
  - Foxboron 6y ago
    >and you support millions I'll be amazed if Arch has a million users. Our napkin math using steam user statistics put us on around 500k-600k users.