3 ms·

Is the difference between an OS with one init system and another noticable? I've been running SystemD without hitch for years now. Maybe I am just to casual of

Is the difference between an OS with one init system and another noticable? I've been running SystemD without hitch for years now. Maybe I am just to casual of a user? Using Guix as a comparision, and trying to write services, it feels similar (execpt its a scheme lisp which is cool), but I cant say I have ever written a systemd service larger than emacsclient.

adamcstephens 6y ago
No, for most users there isn’t really a noticeable difference.
- woleium 6y ago
  systemd can drastically reduce startup times for some systems (better dependency handling when starting services). Can be valuable for containers when autoscaling.
  - dTal 6y ago
    Anecdotally, my Raspberry Pis running Raspbian/systemd boot in about a minute, while the ones running Void/runit boot in 4 seconds. Perhaps the systemd ones are "doing more", but whatever that functionality is, I don't miss it.
Brian_K_White 6y ago
It's akin to the difference between any Linux and Windows. For most peopleb Windows works well enough and they do not understand or care to even try to understand why anyone would even want to use anything else. They see Linux as frankly inferior. There is really no point in trying to sell any other point of view or philosophy or priorities to such people. They don't understand, and often think they do understand and judge you to be out of touch and irrational, or at least impractical. Same exact thing with systemd. It was designed to solve a certain kind of problem, in way that is more or less functional enuogh, and more or less fine enough in a vacuum. But it's not in a vacuum. It's in a preexisting ecosystem, and essentially requires everything else to change to work with it to the exclusion of anything else. (this last is technically deniable, but not in reality. Saying "we don't prevent everyone from doing 2x all future maintenance work" does not meaningfully address the fact that no one will choose to do that. All package maintainers choose a paradigm to support, not both.) Basically, the biggest problem with systemd is it's an inconsiderate dick. But if you don't administer a wide variety of systems and a wide variety of software, and don't value that variety, and don't care about the future enough to let it affect your behavior today, then you don't even perceive that inconsideration, and so do not think that systemd, or it's architect, or it's lobbyists, are dicks.
dirkt 6y ago
> Is the difference between an OS with one init system and another noticable? Systemd has lots of good ideas, and is now mature enough in most places. Unfortunately, the authors of systemd have the tendency to replace virtually everything in Linux with their own version, designed for their own purpose, without listening to how other people use those things. And you can't really disentangle parts of systemd just using a distro. So system administrators not using Linux for a desktop got tired of constantly fighting the breaking things, and just threw it out completely. If systemd only was an init system, and had stayed out of the rest (syslog, DNS, network management, directory layout, you name it), and would just have done the init system job really well, it wouldn't really be controversial. But with the "you need to do it my way, I don't give a shit for your use case is, and I don't give a shit if I break your system" attitude shoving it down the throat of everyone, they didn't really make friends with many people who run more complicated systems.

adamcstephens 6y ago

No, for most users there isn’t really a noticeable difference.

woleium 6y ago
systemd can drastically reduce startup times for some systems (better dependency handling when starting services). Can be valuable for containers when autoscaling.
- dTal 6y ago
  Anecdotally, my Raspberry Pis running Raspbian/systemd boot in about a minute, while the ones running Void/runit boot in 4 seconds. Perhaps the systemd ones are "doing more", but whatever that functionality is, I don't miss it.

Brian_K_White 6y ago

It's akin to the difference between any Linux and Windows. For most peopleb Windows works well enough and they do not understand or care to even try to understand why anyone would even want to use anything else. They see Linux as frankly inferior. There is really no point in trying to sell any other point of view or philosophy or priorities to such people. They don't understand, and often think they do understand and judge you to be out of touch and irrational, or at least impractical. Same exact thing with systemd. It was designed to solve a certain kind of problem, in way that is more or less functional enuogh, and more or less fine enough in a vacuum. But it's not in a vacuum. It's in a preexisting ecosystem, and essentially requires everything else to change to work with it to the exclusion of anything else. (this last is technically deniable, but not in reality. Saying "we don't prevent everyone from doing 2x all future maintenance work" does not meaningfully address the fact that no one will choose to do that. All package maintainers choose a paradigm to support, not both.) Basically, the biggest problem with systemd is it's an inconsiderate dick. But if you don't administer a wide variety of systems and a wide variety of software, and don't value that variety, and don't care about the future enough to let it affect your behavior today, then you don't even perceive that inconsideration, and so do not think that systemd, or it's architect, or it's lobbyists, are dicks.

dirkt 6y ago

> Is the difference between an OS with one init system and another noticable? Systemd has lots of good ideas, and is now mature enough in most places. Unfortunately, the authors of systemd have the tendency to replace virtually everything in Linux with their own version, designed for their own purpose, without listening to how other people use those things. And you can't really disentangle parts of systemd just using a distro. So system administrators not using Linux for a desktop got tired of constantly fighting the breaking things, and just threw it out completely. If systemd only was an init system, and had stayed out of the rest (syslog, DNS, network management, directory layout, you name it), and would just have done the init system job really well, it wouldn't really be controversial. But with the "you need to do it my way, I don't give a shit for your use case is, and I don't give a shit if I break your system" attitude shoving it down the throat of everyone, they didn't really make friends with many people who run more complicated systems.