2 ms·

The people who hate systemd are effectively a loud minority, and for some reason always seem incapable of discussing the supposed issues with it without resorti

The people who hate systemd are effectively a loud minority, and for some reason always seem incapable of discussing the supposed issues with it without resorting to hyperbolic statements like “legitimately insane”.

ahartmetz 3y ago
A DNS resolver, NTP client and boot loader as part of the init system does seem to be a bad idea, no? All of them are worse than what they are replacing - more limited and more buggy. Sometimes because they are just new, sometimes because the authors don't know what they are doing. In any case, why switch? Regarding "part of", there's a nice motte and bailey argument from systemd that they are absolutely not parts of it when talking to critics, but when it comes to shipping and using them, they are. It was especially bad when udev "moved in with" systemd, there were promises to keep it working without systemd. These were swiftly broken. Assuming good faith from that crowd is a mistake. Fortunately, there is a fork of udev that works without systemd, and you know what, it's not even a difficult one. So what were the strong technical reasons for adding the dependency?
constantcrying 3y ago
I absolutely did include explicit problems with systemd in my post. And I wasn't hyperbolic, what systemd is not explainable by any rational thought. If you want to tell me why your init system should also be an fstab and a DNS provider go ahead. I criticize systemd because for months my full time job was dealing with it. I suspect the minority of systemd haters are actually people like me, who actually had to do non-trivial things with it and realized how bad it is, if you actually have to do things with it. Hating systemd is sort of a joke in certain Linux circles, where "Unix philosophy" and "minimalism" are tossed around. I don't really care about that discussion. Systemd is awful by any philosophy which aims to provide good software, for almost anything you can fill the word "good" with.

ahartmetz 3y ago

A DNS resolver, NTP client and boot loader as part of the init system does seem to be a bad idea, no? All of them are worse than what they are replacing - more limited and more buggy. Sometimes because they are just new, sometimes because the authors don't know what they are doing. In any case, why switch? Regarding "part of", there's a nice motte and bailey argument from systemd that they are absolutely not parts of it when talking to critics, but when it comes to shipping and using them, they are. It was especially bad when udev "moved in with" systemd, there were promises to keep it working without systemd. These were swiftly broken. Assuming good faith from that crowd is a mistake. Fortunately, there is a fork of udev that works without systemd, and you know what, it's not even a difficult one. So what were the strong technical reasons for adding the dependency?

constantcrying 3y ago

I absolutely did include explicit problems with systemd in my post. And I wasn't hyperbolic, what systemd is not explainable by any rational thought. If you want to tell me why your init system should also be an fstab and a DNS provider go ahead. I criticize systemd because for months my full time job was dealing with it. I suspect the minority of systemd haters are actually people like me, who actually had to do non-trivial things with it and realized how bad it is, if you actually have to do things with it. Hating systemd is sort of a joke in certain Linux circles, where "Unix philosophy" and "minimalism" are tossed around. I don't really care about that discussion. Systemd is awful by any philosophy which aims to provide good software, for almost anything you can fill the word "good" with.