5 ms·

> 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 dest

> 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.
      - rainbow29822 4y ago
        Embrace and extend is a fundamental part of the OSS model. That's what you're supposed to do: pick some OSS, make some custom add-ons to it, then upsell it to your customers. The license encourages everyone to do this. Tons and tons of OSS companies are doing this. Microsoft isn't doing anything out of the ordinary here. Just a reminder holding grudges isn't good for your mental health.
    - effie 4y ago
      Microsoft pushes ads, surveillance software and broken updates on most Windows users. That they are buying influence in Linux and throwing some money at it does not absolve them. Working for bad behaved corporation isn't laudable unless you're literally saving lives there.
      - atonse 4y ago
        Err that seems like an unreasonable (and child-like) simplification of the world. Microsoft has done many terrible things. Most companies of that size have. But they have also done a ton of good things. It’s impossible to take a group of tens of thousands of humans and not find rampant examples of both good and terrible things. Sometimes one outweighs the other and that may sound like where you are but there is a wide gap between doing evil and saving lives, and most of us live somewhere in that gap.
Maursault 4y ago
> and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. systemd should be an optional package on all distros. Shoving it down throats is one of the valid major criticisms. What should have happened instead is systemd was optional on Debian at setup and Debian was forked to include it by default. It is simply backwards that Debian needed to be forked for purity. Duvuan shouldn't need to exist, but it very much does. The entire ideology of openness and freedom has been turned on its head. Instead of "what is best for everyone is good enough for me," has become with entitlement "what is best for me is good enough for everyone." Maybe you like the way you do things, but would any here really insist on forcing everyone else to use your methods and no others? systemd, among other valid criticisms, is unmistakably fascist. For anyone but parent, don't just be thin-skinned and downvote my comment because you have allowed yourself to be insulted. Be courageous and disagree with me if you can. How is systemd not fascist?
- piperswe 4y ago
  The primary definition of fascism, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is this: > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition systemd has nothing to do with nation or race. There are much better words than fascism to describe Debian's prioritization of systemd.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Thank you, and a worthy attempt, but as you have defined Fascism, the political movement and a noun and proper name, as opposed to the adjective fascist, as in advocation of an authoritarian regime and in opposition of and intolerant of opposing views, and in modern definitions, a synonym of "bullying," your post is somewhat of a straw man. Obviously I was not suggesting that systemd was literally Nazi software. What I was saying is that systemd, as an unnecessarily complex machine in itself as it proceeds to annex other parts of the system, is autocratic, strongly regimented and centralized, suppresses opposition, and subordinates individual interests.
b112 4y ago
And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing. All the changes to gnome, which depended 100% upon systemd at the time, were pushed by redhat, gnome contributers. This one of the biggest reasons given, for getting systemd into debian at the time. When systemd was being pushed origionally, fast boot times, predictable names, and a few other things were big reasons. Yet debian already had parallel init booting, and already had predictable interface names. Systemd has done almost nothing for debian, and has many drawbacks, as you say. Systemd was a redhat solution, to redhat issues, and redhat used its power in the community to force it through. There were a lot of outright lies, politics, and more at implementation time. And you're right, part of it was redhat wanting to force systemd, and no other.
- effie 4y ago
  But debian has chosen to adopt systemd, so at least some substantial part of Debian developers preferred going with it to keeping the status quo with sysvinit. Maybe they were badly influence by Redhat/Poettering, but it was their call.
  - rainbow29822 4y ago
    Of course they were influenced by the author of programs they use. They were also influenced by Linus Torvalds when they decided to use his kernel. I don't see any problems with this. That's what you do when you make something that you're proud of. You go around to other people and try to convince them to use it.

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.
    - rainbow29822 4y ago
      Embrace and extend is a fundamental part of the OSS model. That's what you're supposed to do: pick some OSS, make some custom add-ons to it, then upsell it to your customers. The license encourages everyone to do this. Tons and tons of OSS companies are doing this. Microsoft isn't doing anything out of the ordinary here. Just a reminder holding grudges isn't good for your mental health.
  - effie 4y ago
    Microsoft pushes ads, surveillance software and broken updates on most Windows users. That they are buying influence in Linux and throwing some money at it does not absolve them. Working for bad behaved corporation isn't laudable unless you're literally saving lives there.
    - atonse 4y ago
      Err that seems like an unreasonable (and child-like) simplification of the world. Microsoft has done many terrible things. Most companies of that size have. But they have also done a ton of good things. It’s impossible to take a group of tens of thousands of humans and not find rampant examples of both good and terrible things. Sometimes one outweighs the other and that may sound like where you are but there is a wide gap between doing evil and saving lives, and most of us live somewhere in that gap.

Maursault 4y ago

> and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. systemd should be an optional package on all distros. Shoving it down throats is one of the valid major criticisms. What should have happened instead is systemd was optional on Debian at setup and Debian was forked to include it by default. It is simply backwards that Debian needed to be forked for purity. Duvuan shouldn't need to exist, but it very much does. The entire ideology of openness and freedom has been turned on its head. Instead of "what is best for everyone is good enough for me," has become with entitlement "what is best for me is good enough for everyone." Maybe you like the way you do things, but would any here really insist on forcing everyone else to use your methods and no others? systemd, among other valid criticisms, is unmistakably fascist. For anyone but parent, don't just be thin-skinned and downvote my comment because you have allowed yourself to be insulted. Be courageous and disagree with me if you can. How is systemd not fascist?

piperswe 4y ago
The primary definition of fascism, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is this: > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition systemd has nothing to do with nation or race. There are much better words than fascism to describe Debian's prioritization of systemd.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Thank you, and a worthy attempt, but as you have defined Fascism, the political movement and a noun and proper name, as opposed to the adjective fascist, as in advocation of an authoritarian regime and in opposition of and intolerant of opposing views, and in modern definitions, a synonym of "bullying," your post is somewhat of a straw man. Obviously I was not suggesting that systemd was literally Nazi software. What I was saying is that systemd, as an unnecessarily complex machine in itself as it proceeds to annex other parts of the system, is autocratic, strongly regimented and centralized, suppresses opposition, and subordinates individual interests.

b112 4y ago

And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing. All the changes to gnome, which depended 100% upon systemd at the time, were pushed by redhat, gnome contributers. This one of the biggest reasons given, for getting systemd into debian at the time. When systemd was being pushed origionally, fast boot times, predictable names, and a few other things were big reasons. Yet debian already had parallel init booting, and already had predictable interface names. Systemd has done almost nothing for debian, and has many drawbacks, as you say. Systemd was a redhat solution, to redhat issues, and redhat used its power in the community to force it through. There were a lot of outright lies, politics, and more at implementation time. And you're right, part of it was redhat wanting to force systemd, and no other.

effie 4y ago
But debian has chosen to adopt systemd, so at least some substantial part of Debian developers preferred going with it to keeping the status quo with sysvinit. Maybe they were badly influence by Redhat/Poettering, but it was their call.
- rainbow29822 4y ago
  Of course they were influenced by the author of programs they use. They were also influenced by Linus Torvalds when they decided to use his kernel. I don't see any problems with this. That's what you do when you make something that you're proud of. You go around to other people and try to convince them to use it.