12 ms·

I just never get why people always flame on systemd. Sure, it's kinda bloated in the sense that it is "battery included" just like Python, but the intention to

by stevefan1999 4y ago

I just never get why people always flame on systemd. Sure, it's kinda bloated in the sense that it is "battery included" just like Python, but the intention to have a stable init with great system and service management is very good from both a DevOps and Sysadmin perspective. It is at least much better than writing your adhoc init.d script that may not guarantee to run on other Linux distros.

twic 4y ago
I think it's because there were other alternatives that solved the same important problems, while being much simpler and less intrusive.
lakomen 4y ago
The arrogance of Lennart has something to do with it. The way he tends to disregard real bugs as not a bug, since he and his production are perfect and always right. Numerous cases of that. Then the security aspect of a jack of all trades process running as one that controls every other process. Reading logs after a panic and rebooting to check them is a pain in the ass without journald on the chrooting system, reading and parsing logs the same. There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. The above doesn't represent my personal opinion, it's a representation of what reasons people might have.
- TacticalCoder 4y ago
  > There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. I only learned about that a few days ago, here on HN (some thread or some old comment). It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. I do run both Debian (systemd) and Devuan (a Debian fork with all the systemd stuff removed). I use Devuan on my main desktop PC and I've got exactly zero problem. That's the thing: many "sell" systemd as some mandatory machinery but it simply ain't. Ultra-light containers (like Alpine-based ones) run fine (and faster) without systemd. Desktops do run fine without systemd (I'm running Devuan on my workstation and Debian on my laptop: it's basically the same experience). For certain types of servers I can understand some see benefits in running systemd. Neither IBM / Red Hat nor Microsoft should be those setting the terms of what is or is not an acceptable "PID 1" for Linux. The day Linux becomes "systemd Linux" is the day I'll switch to a BSD. I don't mind that systemd exists as long as people still have the choice to run a non-systemd Linux. The kernel should be orthogonal to systemd and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing.
  - atonse 4y ago
    > It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. Sorry, what exactly is the issue with a bunch of Linux maintainers working for Microsoft? Is there still some sort of collective adjustment issue with Microsoft being a major backer of Linux now? If the maintainers themselves (people who have dedicated their lives to progressing Linux) are ok with it, why does anyone else have an issue? And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers?
    - b112 4y ago
      And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers? Systemd was 100% created by redhat, so no, corporate backers aren't the problem. The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. Many in the OSS community consider Microsoft to be pure evil. And if their historical behaviour is any indication, nothing they do with/for Linux will turn out well, or good for the community.
      - PoignardAzur 4y ago
        > The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. And now they're one of the major backers. All the work is being done in the open, so it's not like there's a nefarious hidden agenda there (an agenda that would have needed to somehow stay dormant for 10+ years). The idea that working for Microsoft is something dirty that should be shunned for open source just doesn't make practical sense.
        b112 4y ago
        Pulseaudio was developed in the open. So was systemd, and many take issue with that. And embrace and extend can exist in OSS models. Microsoft is dirty, and it is dirt they cannot wash off in a mere few years. If they behave correctly for 20 years, as long as they behaved in a literally evil fashion, then maybe they have reformed.
- rfmoz 4y ago
  About the bugs, the Github have 1.8k issues open. That makes me think, is there a way to know what are the projects with more open issues on Github?
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    Just some large projects whose bug trackers are on github: * LLVM: 19,219 open issues * Rust compiler: 8,580 open issues * Python: 6,693 open issues The number of open issues isn't a particularly good indicator of program quality.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Woah, I missed that news! I don't imagine he'll stop writing Linux software though.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > Numerous cases of that. Like when? Because I have interacted with projects where Lennart is part of the admin team and from where I stand it’s all in your head. Both bugs and security are taken seriously. > The above doesn't represent my personal opinion, it's a representation of what reasons people might have. I admire the courage you display in standing for your opinion.
  - labawi 4y ago
    I don't know about your experiences, but systemd is leaking preconceived notions and self-imposed limitations like a broken sieve where one is left to sift manually through documentation and bug-reports, collecting and evaluating rules, exceptions and idiosyncratic notions to determine whether systemd will do what one wants. Latest example: I have a service I want running, so I set it to Restart=always. Read the long Restart= documentations - seems ok. Does it work? Failure 1: Well.. you also need appropriate RestartSec/StartLimitInterval. Ok, I I set it up. Does it work? Failure 2: Well.. restart doesn't actually apply to failed dependencies, so .. don't have dependencies that fail, ok? That's not a bug. [1][2] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 [2] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-systemd-service-on-dependency-failure https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-s...
- lotharcable 4y ago
  > There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Yeah, well... Microsoft is probably soon to be one of the bigger Linux developers out there. As the profit slowly drains out of the desktop their core business model is going to be increasingly dependent on open source and Linux. Just in case anybody reading this is a big fanboy of Linux... This is what winning feels like.
VLM 4y ago
Systemd is a somewhat successful non-unix operating system, marketed to people who want a unix-like operating system using force. This isn't what anyone wants but you'll go along or they'll unleash a hell of sophistry about how this is "really" what everyone wants even if its the opposite, made up stories about the opponents, or only bad people don't want what we want and you don't want to be tagged as one of the bad people so you're gonna say you officially love systemd, correct? It would be like going to the EV car dealership and being told the best modern EV they sell is a diesel pickup truck and they will unleash sophistry hell on anyone who doesn't go along with their meme that the best modern EV is obviously a diesel pickup truck but pointing that out in public is doubleplus ungood badthink. Ironically, for a non-unix-like operating system, its not that bad and works some of the time, although not as well as a unix-like OS would work for someone who's engineering criteria is a unix-like OS. Most people would be technically better off with a unix-like OS than a systemd based OS, but thats not what the corporate marketing department is selling, so we all love systemd, uh huh.
- traverseda 4y ago
  > and you don't want to be tagged as one of the bad people so you're gonna say you officially love systemd, correct? That does seem to be like weirdly a thing with redhat projects. I once saw someone say that being anti-systemd was correlated with supporting trump on hackernews, and of course if you don't like gnome you hate accessibility and poor people (who apparently don't know how to use less hobbled/phone-like user interfaces).
- esarbe 4y ago
  Rubbish. Linux+GNU is either a Unix operating system or it is not. Having systemd on board changes exactly nothing, since there never was a system services interface anyway. Files in a directory you say? That's not an interface, it's a recipe for failure. Or why do you think that every distribution used to ship their own init scripts? You EV car dealership is awfully flawed, especially with Linux+GNU you can even build you own car. So why are you complaining? Nobody is forcing you to use a distro with systemd. Nobody can force you. You're not a victim, you're privileged. systemd is for the first time providing Linux+GNU with a sane system services management and finally gets it ahead of OSX or windows in terms of capability. Instead of unconstrained bash scripts (that require ridiculous template magic or fail for the first edge case) you need only a ten line service description that does things that an init script would not been able to deliver. Like the most basic thing ever; reliable restart. The amount of hacks that were necessary to get an init script to only semi-reliably restart are atrocious - and deamontools are just the beginning. I've come to understand that the dislike of systemd has less to do with the technology at hand but more with human nature.
cptnapalm 4y ago
While systemd does have many good features, it also has failed to turn computers off on various systems and distros. I repeat: failed to turn computers off. This wouldn't be acceptable in beta quality software. But it's systemd and for whatever reason gets a free pass on failure to do incredibly basic things.
VancouverMan 4y ago
It's quite simple: many people had atrocious experiences with systemd. Systemd ruined Debian for me, for example. I'd been using Debian testing for years and years, on multiple systems. Despite its name, I'd always found Debian testing to be more reliable than the stable releases of other major distros. When performing updates and upgrades during those many years of using Debian testing, I had only ever experienced trivial issues that I could easily resolve, usually just on my own with a few minutes of investigation. Then systemd was forced onto Debian's users. As soon as it ended up on one of my systems, the problems started. That very first update left my computer unable to boot. That was the first time in over a decade of using Debian that that'd happened. I also remember it taking far too long to diagnose and resolve whatever that initial problem was. Subsequent updates involving systemd just caused me more and more problems. They usually weren't minor issues, either. They'd significantly impact the usability of my installation. To make matters worse, I, as a user, didn't see systemd even bringing me any benefits. Eventually, I lost my ability to trust in Debian and its reliability, even for Debian stable once systemd eventually made it there. Now I completely avoid Debian and other systemd-using Linux distros whenever I can.
- effie 4y ago
  I recall part of the problem was that in some cases, Debian packagers/developers did not know how to integrate systemd with sysvinit properly, there were weird problematic constructions such as sysvinit scripts calling systemctl or vice versa and some breakage due to the way they used systemd. Of course, one could ask whether this was partly due to bad systemd documentation and unfulfilled expectations of promised systemd behavior.
  - forgotmypw17 4y ago
    Seems like three different problems coming together here: a) Poor documentation b) Overly complex c) Not a choice
mindslight 4y ago
I think it just has many details you can end up hating, so a person will inevitably run into one or two. I myself don't have a problem with the monolithic thing that replaced sysv init scripts. While the definition of sysv init scripts was attractively simple, the resulting implementation was not. Wading through many lines of boilerplate shell that's mostly accidental complexity is not my idea of a good time. But I do hate how systemd splays its config and dependency graph throughout hundreds of tiny files and symlinks in multiple directories (and .ini files at that!), and then insists that this is no problem because you can "just" learn some bespoke commands to analyze them for you. With my sysadmin hat on, I'd much rather have a unit be a single file in a single well known directory, that specifies only the service properties and no dependency information. And then have the dependencies orchestrated by a single logical top-level file that pulls those units in and defines what depends on what. In general if I'm going to customize a distribution-supplied config file, I'd much rather overwrite the distribution file and completely own it going forward, rather than having the distro file and my file merged with some arbitrary rules. Having said that, I've moved many of my machines to NixOS where systemd is just another thing to be mitigated and nixified. The expected on-disk format doesn't matter, because it's all generated from a single logical config file and then splayed out however systemd wants. The nix config looks a bit verbose and wonky, but at least it's contained. But it also feels like it would be quite easy to switch out down the line...
forgotmypw17 4y ago
At the very top of this page, there are two features listed which will be removed in the future. This means that anyone who relies on this feature is now tasked with all the extra work and cognitive load of finding replacements for those features, changing and testing their configuration, and the risk of deploying these changes. To me, that is a "non-consensual" change, and I try to avoid any technology that has a history of these non-consensual changes, because I want my systems to run without extra maintenance.
- sdgfdhdgj 4y ago
  > To me, that is a "non-consensual" change, and I try to avoid any technology that has a history of these non-consensual changes, because I want my systems to run without extra maintenance. Then stop using Linux. The Linux kernel replaces subsystems with different, incompatible subsystems all the time. For example packet filtering was once ipfwadm then ipchains followed by iptables and now nftables.
  - forgotmypw17 4y ago
    Excuse me, who do you think you are, to tell me what to do?

twic 4y ago

I think it's because there were other alternatives that solved the same important problems, while being much simpler and less intrusive.

lakomen 4y ago

The arrogance of Lennart has something to do with it. The way he tends to disregard real bugs as not a bug, since he and his production are perfect and always right. Numerous cases of that. Then the security aspect of a jack of all trades process running as one that controls every other process. Reading logs after a panic and rebooting to check them is a pain in the ass without journald on the chrooting system, reading and parsing logs the same. There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. The above doesn't represent my personal opinion, it's a representation of what reasons people might have.

TacticalCoder 4y ago
> There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. I only learned about that a few days ago, here on HN (some thread or some old comment). It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. I do run both Debian (systemd) and Devuan (a Debian fork with all the systemd stuff removed). I use Devuan on my main desktop PC and I've got exactly zero problem. That's the thing: many "sell" systemd as some mandatory machinery but it simply ain't. Ultra-light containers (like Alpine-based ones) run fine (and faster) without systemd. Desktops do run fine without systemd (I'm running Devuan on my workstation and Debian on my laptop: it's basically the same experience). For certain types of servers I can understand some see benefits in running systemd. Neither IBM / Red Hat nor Microsoft should be those setting the terms of what is or is not an acceptable "PID 1" for Linux. The day Linux becomes "systemd Linux" is the day I'll switch to a BSD. I don't mind that systemd exists as long as people still have the choice to run a non-systemd Linux. The kernel should be orthogonal to systemd and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing.
- atonse 4y ago
  > It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. Sorry, what exactly is the issue with a bunch of Linux maintainers working for Microsoft? Is there still some sort of collective adjustment issue with Microsoft being a major backer of Linux now? If the maintainers themselves (people who have dedicated their lives to progressing Linux) are ok with it, why does anyone else have an issue? And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers?
  - b112 4y ago
    And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers? Systemd was 100% created by redhat, so no, corporate backers aren't the problem. The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. Many in the OSS community consider Microsoft to be pure evil. And if their historical behaviour is any indication, nothing they do with/for Linux will turn out well, or good for the community.
    - PoignardAzur 4y ago
      > The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. And now they're one of the major backers. All the work is being done in the open, so it's not like there's a nefarious hidden agenda there (an agenda that would have needed to somehow stay dormant for 10+ years). The idea that working for Microsoft is something dirty that should be shunned for open source just doesn't make practical sense.
      - b112 4y ago
        Pulseaudio was developed in the open. So was systemd, and many take issue with that. And embrace and extend can exist in OSS models. Microsoft is dirty, and it is dirt they cannot wash off in a mere few years. If they behave correctly for 20 years, as long as they behaved in a literally evil fashion, then maybe they have reformed.
rfmoz 4y ago
About the bugs, the Github have 1.8k issues open. That makes me think, is there a way to know what are the projects with more open issues on Github?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Just some large projects whose bug trackers are on github: * LLVM: 19,219 open issues * Rust compiler: 8,580 open issues * Python: 6,693 open issues The number of open issues isn't a particularly good indicator of program quality.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Woah, I missed that news! I don't imagine he'll stop writing Linux software though.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> Numerous cases of that. Like when? Because I have interacted with projects where Lennart is part of the admin team and from where I stand it’s all in your head. Both bugs and security are taken seriously. > The above doesn't represent my personal opinion, it's a representation of what reasons people might have. I admire the courage you display in standing for your opinion.
- labawi 4y ago
  I don't know about your experiences, but systemd is leaking preconceived notions and self-imposed limitations like a broken sieve where one is left to sift manually through documentation and bug-reports, collecting and evaluating rules, exceptions and idiosyncratic notions to determine whether systemd will do what one wants. Latest example: I have a service I want running, so I set it to Restart=always. Read the long Restart= documentations - seems ok. Does it work? Failure 1: Well.. you also need appropriate RestartSec/StartLimitInterval. Ok, I I set it up. Does it work? Failure 2: Well.. restart doesn't actually apply to failed dependencies, so .. don't have dependencies that fail, ok? That's not a bug. [1][2] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 [2] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-systemd-service-on-dependency-failure https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-s...
lotharcable 4y ago
> There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Yeah, well... Microsoft is probably soon to be one of the bigger Linux developers out there. As the profit slowly drains out of the desktop their core business model is going to be increasingly dependent on open source and Linux. Just in case anybody reading this is a big fanboy of Linux... This is what winning feels like.

VLM 4y ago

Systemd is a somewhat successful non-unix operating system, marketed to people who want a unix-like operating system using force. This isn't what anyone wants but you'll go along or they'll unleash a hell of sophistry about how this is "really" what everyone wants even if its the opposite, made up stories about the opponents, or only bad people don't want what we want and you don't want to be tagged as one of the bad people so you're gonna say you officially love systemd, correct? It would be like going to the EV car dealership and being told the best modern EV they sell is a diesel pickup truck and they will unleash sophistry hell on anyone who doesn't go along with their meme that the best modern EV is obviously a diesel pickup truck but pointing that out in public is doubleplus ungood badthink. Ironically, for a non-unix-like operating system, its not that bad and works some of the time, although not as well as a unix-like OS would work for someone who's engineering criteria is a unix-like OS. Most people would be technically better off with a unix-like OS than a systemd based OS, but thats not what the corporate marketing department is selling, so we all love systemd, uh huh.

traverseda 4y ago
> and you don't want to be tagged as one of the bad people so you're gonna say you officially love systemd, correct? That does seem to be like weirdly a thing with redhat projects. I once saw someone say that being anti-systemd was correlated with supporting trump on hackernews, and of course if you don't like gnome you hate accessibility and poor people (who apparently don't know how to use less hobbled/phone-like user interfaces).
esarbe 4y ago
Rubbish. Linux+GNU is either a Unix operating system or it is not. Having systemd on board changes exactly nothing, since there never was a system services interface anyway. Files in a directory you say? That's not an interface, it's a recipe for failure. Or why do you think that every distribution used to ship their own init scripts? You EV car dealership is awfully flawed, especially with Linux+GNU you can even build you own car. So why are you complaining? Nobody is forcing you to use a distro with systemd. Nobody can force you. You're not a victim, you're privileged. systemd is for the first time providing Linux+GNU with a sane system services management and finally gets it ahead of OSX or windows in terms of capability. Instead of unconstrained bash scripts (that require ridiculous template magic or fail for the first edge case) you need only a ten line service description that does things that an init script would not been able to deliver. Like the most basic thing ever; reliable restart. The amount of hacks that were necessary to get an init script to only semi-reliably restart are atrocious - and deamontools are just the beginning. I've come to understand that the dislike of systemd has less to do with the technology at hand but more with human nature.

cptnapalm 4y ago

While systemd does have many good features, it also has failed to turn computers off on various systems and distros. I repeat: failed to turn computers off. This wouldn't be acceptable in beta quality software. But it's systemd and for whatever reason gets a free pass on failure to do incredibly basic things.

VancouverMan 4y ago

It's quite simple: many people had atrocious experiences with systemd. Systemd ruined Debian for me, for example. I'd been using Debian testing for years and years, on multiple systems. Despite its name, I'd always found Debian testing to be more reliable than the stable releases of other major distros. When performing updates and upgrades during those many years of using Debian testing, I had only ever experienced trivial issues that I could easily resolve, usually just on my own with a few minutes of investigation. Then systemd was forced onto Debian's users. As soon as it ended up on one of my systems, the problems started. That very first update left my computer unable to boot. That was the first time in over a decade of using Debian that that'd happened. I also remember it taking far too long to diagnose and resolve whatever that initial problem was. Subsequent updates involving systemd just caused me more and more problems. They usually weren't minor issues, either. They'd significantly impact the usability of my installation. To make matters worse, I, as a user, didn't see systemd even bringing me any benefits. Eventually, I lost my ability to trust in Debian and its reliability, even for Debian stable once systemd eventually made it there. Now I completely avoid Debian and other systemd-using Linux distros whenever I can.

effie 4y ago
I recall part of the problem was that in some cases, Debian packagers/developers did not know how to integrate systemd with sysvinit properly, there were weird problematic constructions such as sysvinit scripts calling systemctl or vice versa and some breakage due to the way they used systemd. Of course, one could ask whether this was partly due to bad systemd documentation and unfulfilled expectations of promised systemd behavior.
- forgotmypw17 4y ago
  Seems like three different problems coming together here: a) Poor documentation b) Overly complex c) Not a choice

mindslight 4y ago

I think it just has many details you can end up hating, so a person will inevitably run into one or two. I myself don't have a problem with the monolithic thing that replaced sysv init scripts. While the definition of sysv init scripts was attractively simple, the resulting implementation was not. Wading through many lines of boilerplate shell that's mostly accidental complexity is not my idea of a good time. But I do hate how systemd splays its config and dependency graph throughout hundreds of tiny files and symlinks in multiple directories (and .ini files at that!), and then insists that this is no problem because you can "just" learn some bespoke commands to analyze them for you. With my sysadmin hat on, I'd much rather have a unit be a single file in a single well known directory, that specifies only the service properties and no dependency information. And then have the dependencies orchestrated by a single logical top-level file that pulls those units in and defines what depends on what. In general if I'm going to customize a distribution-supplied config file, I'd much rather overwrite the distribution file and completely own it going forward, rather than having the distro file and my file merged with some arbitrary rules. Having said that, I've moved many of my machines to NixOS where systemd is just another thing to be mitigated and nixified. The expected on-disk format doesn't matter, because it's all generated from a single logical config file and then splayed out however systemd wants. The nix config looks a bit verbose and wonky, but at least it's contained. But it also feels like it would be quite easy to switch out down the line...

forgotmypw17 4y ago

At the very top of this page, there are two features listed which will be removed in the future. This means that anyone who relies on this feature is now tasked with all the extra work and cognitive load of finding replacements for those features, changing and testing their configuration, and the risk of deploying these changes. To me, that is a "non-consensual" change, and I try to avoid any technology that has a history of these non-consensual changes, because I want my systems to run without extra maintenance.

sdgfdhdgj 4y ago
> To me, that is a "non-consensual" change, and I try to avoid any technology that has a history of these non-consensual changes, because I want my systems to run without extra maintenance. Then stop using Linux. The Linux kernel replaces subsystems with different, incompatible subsystems all the time. For example packet filtering was once ipfwadm then ipchains followed by iptables and now nftables.
- forgotmypw17 4y ago
  Excuse me, who do you think you are, to tell me what to do?