3 ms·

> But it's toxic for the long term, because it undermines the whole point of using linux if you can't swap out pieces or maintain your own forks of individual c

by 3np 5y ago

> But it's toxic for the long term, because it undermines the whole point of using linux if you can't swap out pieces or maintain your own forks of individual components. You can, though? And many distros do by default. Don’t like systemd-boot? You can replace it with grub. Don’t like systemd-networkd? You can replace it with networkctl. Want to use it but prefer to handle Wireguard tunnels with wg-quick? Fine! Don’t like systemd-resolved? You can replace it with dnsmasq. Don’t like systemd-cryptsetup? systemd won’t care if some other system takes care of your LUKS partitions. Etc, etc.

fsflover 5y ago
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd
- 3np 5y ago
  That’s a short list of other packages (none of which I think are part of a base Linux install, correct me if I’m wrong) that have decided to depend on systemd?
- IshKebab 5y ago
  Where's the "hard dependency on libc" list? Or "hard dependency on Bash"? It's ridiculous to imagine that no program is allowed to depend on SystemD.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > Where's the "hard dependency on libc" list? There are multiple libc implementations. libc independence is important and valuable. You'll probably find a "hard dependency on glibc" list in the documentation of e.g. Alpine. > Or "hard dependency on Bash"? Ubuntu will have a list from when they switched to ash as /bin/sh. Again, multiple implementations and independence are important, and something the linux community generally cares about.
    - IshKebab 5y ago
      > There are multiple libc implementations You could make another SystemD implementation if you really wanted. The point is that there are plenty of APIs - even ones with a single implementation - that nobody bats an eye about programs having a "hard dependency" on, but suddenly for SystemD it's apparently a big issue? It's bullshit technical excuses to hide the real reasons people object to SystemD, which are more embarrassing.
      - lmm 5y ago
        > You could make another SystemD implementation if you really wanted. No you can't, because they don't offer stable interfaces as a matter of deliberate policy.
        IshKebab 5y ago
        That seems to be completely untrue: https://systemd.io/PORTABILITY_AND_STABILITY/ https://systemd.io/PORTABILITY_AND_STABILITY/
        lmm 5y ago
        That's changed then, now that the competition has been killed off; at the time certainly logind and the cgroup integration had no stable interface.

by 3np 5y ago

fsflover 5y ago

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd

3np 5y ago
That’s a short list of other packages (none of which I think are part of a base Linux install, correct me if I’m wrong) that have decided to depend on systemd?
IshKebab 5y ago
Where's the "hard dependency on libc" list? Or "hard dependency on Bash"? It's ridiculous to imagine that no program is allowed to depend on SystemD.
- lmm 5y ago
  > Where's the "hard dependency on libc" list? There are multiple libc implementations. libc independence is important and valuable. You'll probably find a "hard dependency on glibc" list in the documentation of e.g. Alpine. > Or "hard dependency on Bash"? Ubuntu will have a list from when they switched to ash as /bin/sh. Again, multiple implementations and independence are important, and something the linux community generally cares about.
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    > There are multiple libc implementations You could make another SystemD implementation if you really wanted. The point is that there are plenty of APIs - even ones with a single implementation - that nobody bats an eye about programs having a "hard dependency" on, but suddenly for SystemD it's apparently a big issue? It's bullshit technical excuses to hide the real reasons people object to SystemD, which are more embarrassing.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > You could make another SystemD implementation if you really wanted. No you can't, because they don't offer stable interfaces as a matter of deliberate policy.
      - IshKebab 5y ago
        That seems to be completely untrue: https://systemd.io/PORTABILITY_AND_STABILITY/ https://systemd.io/PORTABILITY_AND_STABILITY/
        lmm 5y ago
        That's changed then, now that the competition has been killed off; at the time certainly logind and the cgroup integration had no stable interface.