4 ms·
The thing is, the good things are the things you don't notice; the things that just work. They didn't used to "just work" like that before systemd. System boo
by lambda 2y ago
The thing is, the good things are the things you don't notice; the things that just work.
They didn't used to "just work" like that before systemd.
System boot is faster. I can have fewer things started up in the background, and instead have them start up when needed. Restarting services works consistently. Every application doesn't have its own bespoke and half baked management scripts which don't work half the time. They don't all have to invent their own daemonization support and logging; you just log to the journal.
And that's just core systemd. Things like systemd-resolved give me proper support for split-DNS when using VPNs. systemd-networkd gives me consistent, powerful configurable networking setup that works across distros.
Is it perfect? No, I do still have some complaints with it. But it's a hell of a lot better than what it's replacing. I wouldn't ever go back to sysvinit or upstart, and many other parts of systemd are compelling alternatives to the things they replace, like systemd-networkd over ifupdown.
- fsckboy 2y ago>the good things are the things you don't notice; the things that just work sorry, no, at least in any meaningful sense, because init already just worked for me. and when something didn't, I could find how to fix it in a way that was transparent and I understood and could even modify or make better, without being connected to the internet looking for cargo cult incantations on stack overflow init was a tool; systemd is an adversary
- fiddlerwoaroof 2y agoYeah, the two systemd components GP mentioned have given me no end of trouble.
- cedilla 2y agoOkay, I'll bite. What kind of problems do you have with the part of systemd that replicates sysvinit /every other day/?
- richardfey 2y agoMy most common issues with systemd are related to those long timeouts when something at boot/shutdown is not working as intended, and unexplained/unexplainable changes to the order of boot of some components. For the former I have given up playing whackamole with all the timeouts you need to reconfigure, for the latter I didn't even try because I know that there's something peculiar about my setup that will never work nicely with systemd, there's simply not enough systems configured like that for upstream to care. I have accepted this new reality, but I know that before systemd I was able to fix any highly customised setup of mine, now I have to avoid that and minimise tinkering/hacking.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago> now I have to avoid that and minimise tinkering/hacking. I think this right here hits at the crux of the issue. There are people who like systemd because it's integration-tested with itself and its own defaults, so if you never change those defaults you don't have many problems. Then there are people who don't like systemd because if you do have to change any of its defaults, it often doesn't go well. And, of course, the latter behavior as a box users are expected to live in is poisonous, because everyone is being conditioned to be passive and uniform.
- richardfey 2y agoYes, I think your analysis is spot-on.
- Suzuran 2y ago"See Figure 1".
- oblio 2y ago> And, of course, the latter behavior as a box users are expected to live in is poisonous, because everyone is being conditioned to be passive and uniform. No, it's not, this assumes that the other camp are all idiots. Mainstream distros should be rock solid and boring. Linux never got anywhere with the standard distros because they're all so different. Tinkering is a different mindset (and has a different place) than professional engineering work. Systemd is basically engineering, SysV & co. were basically old school tinkering/hacking. In the same vein, don't be creative with bolt sizes. Be creative with what those bolts allow you to achieve. Be creative at a higher level. That should be the nature of humanity.
- egorfine 2y ago> They didn't used to "just work" like that before systemd. They used to "just work" for _decades_ before systemd. Like, everything. I see reasons for systemd as PID1 and it's great in that role, hands down. Everything else looks like a malignant growth to me, including much praised journald and DoA pieces like resolved.
- egorfine 2y ago> systemd-resolved give me gives me #1 source of troubles on any desktop computer I have ever ran under the systemd era. I feel like resolved is specifically designed to be removed from fresh installations, sort of like a transparent peel on new devices' screens. In my strong opinion, resolved is the most brain damaged part of systemd. Unconfigurable, unmaintainable, unmanageable. > systemd-networkd gives me Oh, there is no point in learning systemd-networkd. By the time you do Ubuntu folks will swap the set of the network initialization tools once again and you'll have to start over. Thankfully, 'apt install ifupdown' still works kind of like `apt install upstart` worked a few years ago.
- 1oooqooq 2y agoi don't think many distros use networkd. they all ship it disabled with nm instead