3 ms·
It's obvious you feel strongly about this from your language, but there is no need to call someone else's opinion bullshit. The reality is that systemd's wide
by forgotmypw17 5y ago
It's obvious you feel strongly about this from your language, but there is no need to call someone else's opinion bullshit.
The reality is that systemd's wide adoption has made many people unhappy, for many reasons, some outlined in the Wikipedia article[1]. Systemd is overly complex, to the point of being obfuscated; systemd has many interlocked dependencies; systemd takes control away from the sysadmin and puts it into a fat binary; systemd goes against the Unix philosophy of "do one thing well"; systemd creates a pattern of homogenizing Linux architecture, and so on.
Lucky for us, unlike with Windows and Mac, there is no "One And Only GNU/Linux Distribution", and instead there are many options and alternatives, many of which have not integrated systemd at all, or only ported small parts of it.
Every day I am ever so grateful for the miracle and gift of FOSS. Thank you. Gracias. Spasibo. Dyakuyu. Merci. Danke.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception
- jart 5y agoWow look at the names on that list. None of them had a choice though since the decision was made unilaterally. They woke up one day and were told to hand over control of their boot, userspace, ssh auth, and dns to this new program with binary logs that speaks nonstandard binary protocols. Open source essentially boils down to free candy from strangers on the Internet, and the thing that's historically made that work is transparency. Without it, you've got a system that requires faith and is fueled by the fumes of trust painstakingly built by those before you. That's why the old guard is unhappy about it.