6 ms·

I'm a newcomer to Linux so I don't know the history, but whats so bad about systemd? I've used it on a basic level and it seems to get the job done? What do the

I'm a newcomer to Linux so I don't know the history, but whats so bad about systemd? I've used it on a basic level and it seems to get the job done? What do the alternatives offer?

aseo 3y ago
Some people consider systemd to be “bloatware”. There are many alternatives, but some of the more popular options are runit and OpenRC
k310 3y ago
The alternative is the old init system. There's a discussion that will answer your questions (and more!) here: https://www.howtogeek.com/713847/the-best-linux-distributions-without-systemd/ https://www.howtogeek.com/713847/the-best-linux-distribution... Alternatives: https://www.without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Main_Page/ https://www.without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Main_Page/ Knoppix ( http://knoppix.net http://knoppix.net ) as of release 8.6 is without systemd, and is a fine live-bootable/installable distro. I've used it to rescue systems.
- horeszko 3y ago
  Thank you for the links, I didn't know systemd went against the grain re: unix philosophy. Reading the links and some of the criticisms of systemd, it makes me wonder, why do so many distros default to systemd?
  - unmole 3y ago
    > why do so many distros default to systemd? Because it solves real problems: https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html If you're a newcomer to Linux, I would very strongly recommend sticking with systemd. Like you pointed out, it's the default for all mainstream Linux distributions.
    - saurik 3y ago
      I started scrolling through that and came across a chart that has "interfacing via d-bus" as a green feature instead of a red bug at the very top of the list and I'm having a hard time taking it seriously. And I liked the shell scripts that Linux classically had been using: it meant I could read and trace what was happening. I dunno... if you have "modular C" as a feature and "shell scripts" as a bug you probably have made up a bunch of "problems" the same way people who would always whine about their languages and frameworks not being "modern" often do :/.
      - klysm 3y ago
        In reality the shell scripts used in the previous generation of init systems were difficult to follow. I agree that dbus is perhaps heavy weight, but it does provide an API. You can run systemd without it.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    UNIX philosophy is just a book quote that never was uphold in practice in big iron UNIX, even though it gets repeated all the time in FOSS circles. As for systemd hate, again, most big iron UNIX have introduced similar infrastructure way before systemd came to be. OS X has launchd, Solaris and its descendants have SMF, for example.
  - cf100clunk 3y ago
    Many, many distros are directly derivative of a ''parent'' distro like Debian. If the parent distro sneezes, almost all of those derivative distros do likewise.
treffer 3y ago
The problem people have with it is complexity or personal. You can run your linux kernel with init=/bin/bash and .... well, you've got a shell! A minimal init system can be a shell script that starts some services. Job done. That has historically been the way to do it. There are also several other init systems that are native code based. Systemd is at the other end of the spectrum. It will setup cgroups and resource limits, syslog sockets per service, supervise services, support socket activation etc. etc. And that's without looking at timesyncd, resolved, networkd and a whole set of other systemd tools. I personally find it to be rather low complexity for what it offers, but it has a higher baseline complexity, so be prepared to learn along. And finally.... The maintainer is a rather controversial personal of pulseaudio fame.

I'm a newcomer to Linux so I don't know the history, but whats so bad about systemd? I've used it on a basic level and it seems to get the job done? What do the alternatives offer?

aseo 3y ago

Some people consider systemd to be “bloatware”. There are many alternatives, but some of the more popular options are runit and OpenRC

k310 3y ago

The alternative is the old init system. There's a discussion that will answer your questions (and more!) here: https://www.howtogeek.com/713847/the-best-linux-distributions-without-systemd/ https://www.howtogeek.com/713847/the-best-linux-distribution... Alternatives: https://www.without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Main_Page/ https://www.without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Main_Page/ Knoppix ( http://knoppix.net http://knoppix.net ) as of release 8.6 is without systemd, and is a fine live-bootable/installable distro. I've used it to rescue systems.

horeszko 3y ago
Thank you for the links, I didn't know systemd went against the grain re: unix philosophy. Reading the links and some of the criticisms of systemd, it makes me wonder, why do so many distros default to systemd?
- unmole 3y ago
  > why do so many distros default to systemd? Because it solves real problems: https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html If you're a newcomer to Linux, I would very strongly recommend sticking with systemd. Like you pointed out, it's the default for all mainstream Linux distributions.
  - saurik 3y ago
    I started scrolling through that and came across a chart that has "interfacing via d-bus" as a green feature instead of a red bug at the very top of the list and I'm having a hard time taking it seriously. And I liked the shell scripts that Linux classically had been using: it meant I could read and trace what was happening. I dunno... if you have "modular C" as a feature and "shell scripts" as a bug you probably have made up a bunch of "problems" the same way people who would always whine about their languages and frameworks not being "modern" often do :/.
    - klysm 3y ago
      In reality the shell scripts used in the previous generation of init systems were difficult to follow. I agree that dbus is perhaps heavy weight, but it does provide an API. You can run systemd without it.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  UNIX philosophy is just a book quote that never was uphold in practice in big iron UNIX, even though it gets repeated all the time in FOSS circles. As for systemd hate, again, most big iron UNIX have introduced similar infrastructure way before systemd came to be. OS X has launchd, Solaris and its descendants have SMF, for example.
- cf100clunk 3y ago
  Many, many distros are directly derivative of a ''parent'' distro like Debian. If the parent distro sneezes, almost all of those derivative distros do likewise.

treffer 3y ago

The problem people have with it is complexity or personal. You can run your linux kernel with init=/bin/bash and .... well, you've got a shell! A minimal init system can be a shell script that starts some services. Job done. That has historically been the way to do it. There are also several other init systems that are native code based. Systemd is at the other end of the spectrum. It will setup cgroups and resource limits, syslog sockets per service, supervise services, support socket activation etc. etc. And that's without looking at timesyncd, resolved, networkd and a whole set of other systemd tools. I personally find it to be rather low complexity for what it offers, but it has a higher baseline complexity, so be prepared to learn along. And finally.... The maintainer is a rather controversial personal of pulseaudio fame.