3 ms·

Systemd is crap. Works in the main use case, mess up otherwise. It is the windows kernel of linux distributions. Here for example, suddenly systemd will be man

Systemd is crap. Works in the main use case, mess up otherwise. It is the windows kernel of linux distributions. Here for example, suddenly systemd will be mandatory despite systemd not caring for multiple session of a single user. Not only not yet implemented but totally that don't need it personally so no one can want to have it. And so again the capability of our linux based distribution will be restricted for something that was just working for decades. Again, we can also notice how systemd people try to force systemd usage down or throats by making it mandatory for core parts like the login. Where it is not the responsibility of the initsystem to deal with that (except in windows) and if the thing was not a damned crap, it would be easy to switch to alternatives with clear interfaces.

calcifer 1y ago
> Where it is not the responsibility of the initsystem systemd is not an init system. It's an umbrella project with many distinct tools and services, only one of which is an init provider.
- pona-a 1y ago
  What makes it problematic is that they still end up with cross-dependencies. I might find resolved or logind great tools, but I can't use them without systemd, even though I can sitll use systemd without resolved. They all reinforce systemd as an irreplaceable component that will only grow more hooks for these subprojects, becoming increasingly unimplementable and complex.
jeroenhd 1y ago
systemd is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got on Linux. Treating systemd like an init system is like treating your car like a Bluetooth speaker: yes, you can connect your phone to the speaker system over bluetooth and yes you can take the speakers with you to most places, but the speakers are only a small part of what you're taking along with you Nobody is forcing systemd down anyone's throats. You can use init.d if you like, or OpenRC, or whatever you prefer. What's happening instead is that people who maintain software are no longer interested in maintaing init.d scripts or working around the missing features many supposed alternatives lack.
- adrian_b 1y ago
  Sorry, but systemd is really forced upon the users throats, all the time, more and more. Just a few weeks ago, in some systems that worked perfectly without systemd, I have upgraded Xorg server, but the new version would no longer run, because it has acquired a hard dependence upon systemd. As a workaround, I had to run the additional elogind daemon, which does not provide any useful function, except of keeping happy the developer who has added this extra systemd dependency. Such events have happened for years, every few months, with more and more dependencies of systemd added to various applications, which after that do not gain any useful feature but they force their users who do not want systemd to waste time for developing workarounds that satisfy the new undesirable systemd dependencies.
- greatgib 1y ago
  And to add to the fact that it was shoved down our throat, it wasn't even the best system. There was plenty of them that were interested with great features initng, upstart,... But systemd won because they manage to force us to depend on them for main distributions and core components like login. Pushed strong by red hat...
netsharc 1y ago
It's more comparable to the Windows Registry.. (well ok the registry isn't also dozens of daemons that run everything...)

calcifer 1y ago

> Where it is not the responsibility of the initsystem systemd is not an init system. It's an umbrella project with many distinct tools and services, only one of which is an init provider.

pona-a 1y ago
What makes it problematic is that they still end up with cross-dependencies. I might find resolved or logind great tools, but I can't use them without systemd, even though I can sitll use systemd without resolved. They all reinforce systemd as an irreplaceable component that will only grow more hooks for these subprojects, becoming increasingly unimplementable and complex.

jeroenhd 1y ago

systemd is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got on Linux. Treating systemd like an init system is like treating your car like a Bluetooth speaker: yes, you can connect your phone to the speaker system over bluetooth and yes you can take the speakers with you to most places, but the speakers are only a small part of what you're taking along with you Nobody is forcing systemd down anyone's throats. You can use init.d if you like, or OpenRC, or whatever you prefer. What's happening instead is that people who maintain software are no longer interested in maintaing init.d scripts or working around the missing features many supposed alternatives lack.

adrian_b 1y ago
Sorry, but systemd is really forced upon the users throats, all the time, more and more. Just a few weeks ago, in some systems that worked perfectly without systemd, I have upgraded Xorg server, but the new version would no longer run, because it has acquired a hard dependence upon systemd. As a workaround, I had to run the additional elogind daemon, which does not provide any useful function, except of keeping happy the developer who has added this extra systemd dependency. Such events have happened for years, every few months, with more and more dependencies of systemd added to various applications, which after that do not gain any useful feature but they force their users who do not want systemd to waste time for developing workarounds that satisfy the new undesirable systemd dependencies.
greatgib 1y ago
And to add to the fact that it was shoved down our throat, it wasn't even the best system. There was plenty of them that were interested with great features initng, upstart,... But systemd won because they manage to force us to depend on them for main distributions and core components like login. Pushed strong by red hat...

netsharc 1y ago

It's more comparable to the Windows Registry.. (well ok the registry isn't also dozens of daemons that run everything...)