3 ms·

Why people still don't accept that systemd is bad?

6 points by baa-z 5y ago

znpy 5y ago
Because it's good. More than good, it's awesome.
- baa-z 5y ago
  Have you ever tried any other init? Just wondering.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I started with sys-v init and other init systems about 30 or so years ago. systemd as an init system is far better than any other I used. I'm not very happy with systemd-resolver and some of its other non-init components.
    - baa-z 5y ago
      Yeah systemd init is kinda good (although still bloated) But systemd isn't a init it's a hole mess of utilities that can't do their job well !(also have you tried runit?)
      - dekhn 5y ago
        yes, I've used runit. Athough systemd's overall software engineering is not impressive, I believe the value of having a centralized admin system for all common base functionality of a modern linux workstation or server is high. Of the non-init components of systemd, my experience is: networkd is really powerful but there are serious gaps (that's your mess), resolvd (I spend a lot of time debugging their resolver; I like dnsmasq better). udevd: have never noticed anything about it working any differently from before. timesyncd (versus ntpd): has generally been painless and worked well. I haven't really looked into the container support.
  - znpy 5y ago
    Yes! Upstart in Ubuntu, sysv-init on debian (from sarge up to the one after lenny iirc), openrc in gentoo (briefly), the rc system in netbsd. Systemd is just right. Not perfect of course. But jn comparison to systemd other init systems feel just dumb.
PaulHoule 5y ago
My home server runs Ubuntu w/ systemd. I don't see anything wrong with it. Actually it's easier to administer than any machine I'd run before. (e.g. before systemd the non-system was bad enough that I ended up installing djb's supervision utilities most of the time)
- baa-z 5y ago
  I agree systemV was awful and at that time systemd was a new and good alternative but these day systemd looks like a new systemV
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    Why?
    - baa-z 5y ago
      Search the net for "systemd CVE" for meny of ressons
Finnucane 5y ago
The average desktop user doesn't want to have to think about their init system at all. Any time you have to think about or look at your init system is a failure of the init system. The only reason that happens is because something has gone wrong. So if I am not thinking about my init system, that's good.
- baa-z 5y ago
  That's the point systemd is so big that alot of the problems that you see in your day to day usage are based on it but they are hidden for example I had a frustrating problem with sleep in my system It wouldn't wake up sometimes it wouldn't sleep sometimes black screens and after I replaced systemd with runit every thing was fixed and it only takes 1 to 2 seconds for it to go to sleep
  - Finnucane 5y ago
    My system has no such problems.
dv_dt 5y ago
Is there btw a good reference for a useful subset of interfaces it has - particularly for people used to old init, logging, net config setups, et al.

6 points by baa-z 5y ago

znpy 5y ago

Because it's good. More than good, it's awesome.

baa-z 5y ago
Have you ever tried any other init? Just wondering.
- dekhn 5y ago
  I started with sys-v init and other init systems about 30 or so years ago. systemd as an init system is far better than any other I used. I'm not very happy with systemd-resolver and some of its other non-init components.
  - baa-z 5y ago
    Yeah systemd init is kinda good (although still bloated) But systemd isn't a init it's a hole mess of utilities that can't do their job well !(also have you tried runit?)
    - dekhn 5y ago
      yes, I've used runit. Athough systemd's overall software engineering is not impressive, I believe the value of having a centralized admin system for all common base functionality of a modern linux workstation or server is high. Of the non-init components of systemd, my experience is: networkd is really powerful but there are serious gaps (that's your mess), resolvd (I spend a lot of time debugging their resolver; I like dnsmasq better). udevd: have never noticed anything about it working any differently from before. timesyncd (versus ntpd): has generally been painless and worked well. I haven't really looked into the container support.
- znpy 5y ago
  Yes! Upstart in Ubuntu, sysv-init on debian (from sarge up to the one after lenny iirc), openrc in gentoo (briefly), the rc system in netbsd. Systemd is just right. Not perfect of course. But jn comparison to systemd other init systems feel just dumb.

PaulHoule 5y ago

My home server runs Ubuntu w/ systemd. I don't see anything wrong with it. Actually it's easier to administer than any machine I'd run before. (e.g. before systemd the non-system was bad enough that I ended up installing djb's supervision utilities most of the time)

baa-z 5y ago
I agree systemV was awful and at that time systemd was a new and good alternative but these day systemd looks like a new systemV
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  Why?
  - baa-z 5y ago
    Search the net for "systemd CVE" for meny of ressons

Finnucane 5y ago

The average desktop user doesn't want to have to think about their init system at all. Any time you have to think about or look at your init system is a failure of the init system. The only reason that happens is because something has gone wrong. So if I am not thinking about my init system, that's good.

baa-z 5y ago
That's the point systemd is so big that alot of the problems that you see in your day to day usage are based on it but they are hidden for example I had a frustrating problem with sleep in my system It wouldn't wake up sometimes it wouldn't sleep sometimes black screens and after I replaced systemd with runit every thing was fixed and it only takes 1 to 2 seconds for it to go to sleep
- Finnucane 5y ago
  My system has no such problems.

dv_dt 5y ago

Is there btw a good reference for a useful subset of interfaces it has - particularly for people used to old init, logging, net config setups, et al.