4 ms·

They all switched because of commercial interests, not because everyone loved it.

by ratsmack 3y ago

mrlonglong 3y ago
[flagged]
- kaba0 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mrlonglong 3y ago
    Thank you. I have responded.
kaba0 3y ago
These takes are just ridiculous. Debian, with a more democratic system than any country on Earth, voted twice over the issue, overwhelmingly supporting the support of only systemd. How is that commercial interest? Then arch decided for the same thing independently. I’m sure arch linux is the core interest of every commercial vendor, right? Just accept it, package maintainers had enough of the absolute shitty state of init systems. Systemd solves this very complex problem elegantly, giving some standard userspace can depend on.
- mrlonglong 3y ago
  That's quite true I'll give you that. But there are still issues with it. It keeps swallowing up bits like resolver and others. It should only do one thing well.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    It only swallows those things up if you consider KDE swallowing up painting programs like Krita. Systemd is both a program, a collection of programs.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      Systemd adherents cannot seem to get past this deficiency in the software's messaging. Same with Wayland. "it's not a program it's a protocol" Still sucks, still is a thorn in my side and gets in the way. Systemd is an attempt to consolidate the OS/service layer into one thing. Compilation options don't mean shit when every component is tightly coupled to systemd, its journal, dbus, or some other quackery. Systemd would have been better as an entire distro to itself. But as usual, people cannot handle the idea of running anything other than what's shoved in their faces from corporate programmers. If I wanted corporate software I'd buy Apple or Microsoft.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        So as usual, we get nothing useful or remotely objective from “systemd-haters”.
        zlg_codes 3y ago
        Your terms are impossible to meet. The moment I reach one goal, you'll invent another. Not worth it my dude. I am doing something about it by researching ways to excise Red Hat from as much of the tech stack as possible. Can't do much about the kernel, but every layer above it is moldable. I don't care to provide 'usefulness' to you; if you're not paying me why would I give up any value? It was an arrogantly managed project using the guise of standardization to bypass people's social tendencies. People are stupid, so they fell for the 'only consider the code, not our social fuckery!' Hook, link, and sinker. It really opened my eyes to how ignorant and passive a lot of techies actually are. They're happy to slurp up whatever's advertised to them as the better thing. Systemd runs my current laptop and I hate having to dive under the hood for anything. In a sysvinit, runit, or OpenRC system, I can achieve things quickly and don't need a book's worth of corporate style documentation to operate my damn system. Systemd still doesn't support a one-time script on boot. You have to hack together a unit for that. Most other systems just run an rc.local script in /etc! Binary logs are only useful if systemd is running, and only that version of it too! Good luck understanding journalctl output. It doesn't capture everything. Long story short, systemd has not improved a single area of my computing life. I guess I can ogle at a boot time graph. But the main goal seems to be for systemd to take away knowledge of the lower levels of the stack. Like it or not, open software ecosystems are resistant to standardization by default. Systemd and dbus and friends would not have bothered me if they weren't coupled with weird ideology about One True Linux or other crap. Systemd never solved problems for me. I'm sure it solves many business problems but none of them apply to me.
  - ric2b 3y ago
    Those are separate binaries under the same umbrella project name, you're not forced to use resolverd if you just want the init system.
  - Levitating 3y ago
    I like what Benno Rice said[1] concerning a third "system" layer other than kernel and userspace. Systemd tries to fill that space entirely by providing a suite of tools that integrate well with another. But you are not forced to use these all of these, you're not forced to use resolved over resolvconf. > It should only do one thing well. I know this is a popular principle that some believe to be part of the unix philosophy. But an OS should also be coherent. Some tools can do their own thing and be independent from the rest of the system. But I think this works best for simple userland tools, not tightly integrated system services. In any case I really like resolved. [1]: https://youtu.be/o_AIw9bGogo?si=tpiuOoPFddGsiBdo https://youtu.be/o_AIw9bGogo?si=tpiuOoPFddGsiBdo
- mike_hock 3y ago
  The decision in Debian didn't come that easily. The tech committee was locked in a filibuster over systemd for ages and the votes were 50-50. Then the chair cast his tie-breaker vote in favor of systemd and everyone on the other side flipped their shit.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    The only remotely controversial option was whether they should “explore other alternatives” or not.
    - mike_hock 3y ago
      Maybe when they held a referendum about it, but I remember the committee producing popcorn for years.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  [flagged]
NekkoDroid 3y ago
Ah yes, the commercial interest of Arch Linux
eternityforest 3y ago
Seems like the commercial interest was caused by a lot of people loving it. Most hate seems to be from enthusiast/tinkerer types who want to hand maintain highly customized systems. Systemd is great for ople who just want a commodity OS, maintained by pros, and kept stock.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  Actually, systemd is also better for users that want to highly specialize their systems. It is only bad for people who love debugging race-conditions between shell scripts that run very early in their boot process.
Levitating 3y ago
Are you talking about those ridiculous conspiracies[1][2] where systemd is broken by design so companies like RedHat can make more via support? [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#6959 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#695... [2]: http://ewontfix.com/14/ http://ewontfix.com/14/

They all switched because of commercial interests, not because everyone loved it.

mrlonglong 3y ago

[flagged]

kaba0 3y ago
[flagged]
- mrlonglong 3y ago
  Thank you. I have responded.

kaba0 3y ago

These takes are just ridiculous. Debian, with a more democratic system than any country on Earth, voted twice over the issue, overwhelmingly supporting the support of only systemd. How is that commercial interest? Then arch decided for the same thing independently. I’m sure arch linux is the core interest of every commercial vendor, right? Just accept it, package maintainers had enough of the absolute shitty state of init systems. Systemd solves this very complex problem elegantly, giving some standard userspace can depend on.

mrlonglong 3y ago
That's quite true I'll give you that. But there are still issues with it. It keeps swallowing up bits like resolver and others. It should only do one thing well.
- kaba0 3y ago
  It only swallows those things up if you consider KDE swallowing up painting programs like Krita. Systemd is both a program, a collection of programs.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Systemd adherents cannot seem to get past this deficiency in the software's messaging. Same with Wayland. "it's not a program it's a protocol" Still sucks, still is a thorn in my side and gets in the way. Systemd is an attempt to consolidate the OS/service layer into one thing. Compilation options don't mean shit when every component is tightly coupled to systemd, its journal, dbus, or some other quackery. Systemd would have been better as an entire distro to itself. But as usual, people cannot handle the idea of running anything other than what's shoved in their faces from corporate programmers. If I wanted corporate software I'd buy Apple or Microsoft.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      So as usual, we get nothing useful or remotely objective from “systemd-haters”.
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
        Your terms are impossible to meet. The moment I reach one goal, you'll invent another. Not worth it my dude. I am doing something about it by researching ways to excise Red Hat from as much of the tech stack as possible. Can't do much about the kernel, but every layer above it is moldable. I don't care to provide 'usefulness' to you; if you're not paying me why would I give up any value? It was an arrogantly managed project using the guise of standardization to bypass people's social tendencies. People are stupid, so they fell for the 'only consider the code, not our social fuckery!' Hook, link, and sinker. It really opened my eyes to how ignorant and passive a lot of techies actually are. They're happy to slurp up whatever's advertised to them as the better thing. Systemd runs my current laptop and I hate having to dive under the hood for anything. In a sysvinit, runit, or OpenRC system, I can achieve things quickly and don't need a book's worth of corporate style documentation to operate my damn system. Systemd still doesn't support a one-time script on boot. You have to hack together a unit for that. Most other systems just run an rc.local script in /etc! Binary logs are only useful if systemd is running, and only that version of it too! Good luck understanding journalctl output. It doesn't capture everything. Long story short, systemd has not improved a single area of my computing life. I guess I can ogle at a boot time graph. But the main goal seems to be for systemd to take away knowledge of the lower levels of the stack. Like it or not, open software ecosystems are resistant to standardization by default. Systemd and dbus and friends would not have bothered me if they weren't coupled with weird ideology about One True Linux or other crap. Systemd never solved problems for me. I'm sure it solves many business problems but none of them apply to me.
- ric2b 3y ago
  Those are separate binaries under the same umbrella project name, you're not forced to use resolverd if you just want the init system.
- Levitating 3y ago
  I like what Benno Rice said[1] concerning a third "system" layer other than kernel and userspace. Systemd tries to fill that space entirely by providing a suite of tools that integrate well with another. But you are not forced to use these all of these, you're not forced to use resolved over resolvconf. > It should only do one thing well. I know this is a popular principle that some believe to be part of the unix philosophy. But an OS should also be coherent. Some tools can do their own thing and be independent from the rest of the system. But I think this works best for simple userland tools, not tightly integrated system services. In any case I really like resolved. [1]: https://youtu.be/o_AIw9bGogo?si=tpiuOoPFddGsiBdo https://youtu.be/o_AIw9bGogo?si=tpiuOoPFddGsiBdo
mike_hock 3y ago
The decision in Debian didn't come that easily. The tech committee was locked in a filibuster over systemd for ages and the votes were 50-50. Then the chair cast his tie-breaker vote in favor of systemd and everyone on the other side flipped their shit.
- kaba0 3y ago
  The only remotely controversial option was whether they should “explore other alternatives” or not.
  - mike_hock 3y ago
    Maybe when they held a referendum about it, but I remember the committee producing popcorn for years.
zlg_codes 3y ago
[flagged]

NekkoDroid 3y ago

Ah yes, the commercial interest of Arch Linux

eternityforest 3y ago

Seems like the commercial interest was caused by a lot of people loving it. Most hate seems to be from enthusiast/tinkerer types who want to hand maintain highly customized systems. Systemd is great for ople who just want a commodity OS, maintained by pros, and kept stock.

funcDropShadow 3y ago
Actually, systemd is also better for users that want to highly specialize their systems. It is only bad for people who love debugging race-conditions between shell scripts that run very early in their boot process.

Levitating 3y ago

Are you talking about those ridiculous conspiracies[1][2] where systemd is broken by design so companies like RedHat can make more via support? [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#6959 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#695... [2]: http://ewontfix.com/14/ http://ewontfix.com/14/