3 ms·

This doesn't match my experience at all. For the life of me, I cannot imagine what you are talking about, what any of your issues are. Did you file any tickets,

This doesn't match my experience at all. For the life of me, I cannot imagine what you are talking about, what any of your issues are. Did you file any tickets, or report any issues? What about "actually doing stuff with systems" was "nope nope nope nope"? What situations did systemd break in? What did you try before giving up to reinstall the OS? Thise fud train is cast aspersions, no meat.

Jubijub 1y ago
+1, systemd is very usable, and works. I would really not go back to what was before
vinceguidry 1y ago
You probably use a desktop environment like GNOME or KDE. Maybe do some light coding in an IDE. I do not. I run window manager only, i3, with a really stripped down toolset. I like the idea of knowing my system in and out. My current project is writing my own shell. It can switch between command mode and ruby REPL with ctrl-z. You mention filing tickets / reporting issues, sorry, that means contributing to a project. I'm not wholly opposed to doing that, but I have to like the project first. And there's nothing to like about systemd. You go do that if you like it so much. My guess is you simply won't, and will just keep using other people's software without a care in the world, thinking this kind of online warriorship is actually helping anything.
- jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  Bro, I've been running wmii since before i3 forked off from it. Don't come at me with this dripping disdainful attitude, pretending like you are some high and mighty elite system whisperer. It's so unfortunate that there is such a widespread persistence of hater-dom. It's so toxic and awful, and so rarely does it have even the faintest shred of anything to stand up on. I struggle so much to see these attractors into the negative as so compelling, so ensnaring of the human souls as they have been lately. Systemd is amazing, provides such a rich world versus piecemeal poorly managed systems of yore. Yes you could understand init scripts with very little effort but what a sad virtue, to dare to go no further than what an afternoon of exploration might get you.
  - vinceguidry 1y ago
    I don't fucking hate systemd. I'm marginally glad it exists. I just don't want to live under it's despotic regime. You might like it because you think trains running on time is more important than freedom. You're the one coming at me with fucking attitude, like a 16 year old who just discovered IntelliJ. I have done the exploration, then looked online for why everything is so damn complicated now. It's because systemd colonized the world. It's not just an init system, it's everything below the userland. And a lot of those components are very poorly designed. And it's this big ball of mush where if you use one component, thy must use them all. It's so bad Arch does not support replacing systemd, like at all. You're totally on your own. Go ahead, try replacing systemd components in an Arch system. I'll wait. And lose the fucking attitude.
    - jauntywundrkind 1y ago
      I semi-respectfully disagree that I've given you undue attitude. One of the things I really enjoyed about the Flix programming language submission today was running across their principles section. Right off the top of the list: > Simple is not easy > We believe in Rich Hickey's creed: simple is not easy. We prefer a language that gets things right to one that makes things easy. Such a language might take longer to learn in the short run, but its simplicity pays off in the long run. In my view, yes, there are warts to systemd, but it is an operable understandable system which has a hard fought simplicity to it. I can go to any systemd computer and get a good idea of what's running, understand how it's wired. I use common practices and configs to change or drop in config. My feeling is that a lot of people want easy. That systemd doesn't pass the easy test. The past? The past was enormously complicated. It was complicated because every shop has its own way of configuring things. Every shop has their own tools to assess system state, their own way to configure subsystems like logins, dns, networking, logging, time sync, booting. There were countless countless easy answers, a path littered with the bodies of dead easy answers to this or that concern. And you needed an easy answer for each concern; easy didn't go hard to integrate the different factors. That past was a horrible mess of easy. Systemd feels complex, but compared to the past, there is a persistent understandable simplicity that is a raw joy to use. Things make sense. When you see one thing, you sort of learn how the next works. The back to the woods rejectionism that springs up today is a bizarre weird thing; folks have not seen how wildly different and bedazzling system management used to be, within and across orgs. You might not appreciate why but there's very very good reasons, and I'm fact, the world is inherently complex, there's aot to do, and systemd has created a wonderful pervasive cross-sectional (via it's many opt-in components) "easy" that harnesses and enables the complexity that is, in a sensible glorious way. ("This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.")

Jubijub 1y ago

+1, systemd is very usable, and works. I would really not go back to what was before

vinceguidry 1y ago

You probably use a desktop environment like GNOME or KDE. Maybe do some light coding in an IDE. I do not. I run window manager only, i3, with a really stripped down toolset. I like the idea of knowing my system in and out. My current project is writing my own shell. It can switch between command mode and ruby REPL with ctrl-z. You mention filing tickets / reporting issues, sorry, that means contributing to a project. I'm not wholly opposed to doing that, but I have to like the project first. And there's nothing to like about systemd. You go do that if you like it so much. My guess is you simply won't, and will just keep using other people's software without a care in the world, thinking this kind of online warriorship is actually helping anything.

jauntywundrkind 1y ago
Bro, I've been running wmii since before i3 forked off from it. Don't come at me with this dripping disdainful attitude, pretending like you are some high and mighty elite system whisperer. It's so unfortunate that there is such a widespread persistence of hater-dom. It's so toxic and awful, and so rarely does it have even the faintest shred of anything to stand up on. I struggle so much to see these attractors into the negative as so compelling, so ensnaring of the human souls as they have been lately. Systemd is amazing, provides such a rich world versus piecemeal poorly managed systems of yore. Yes you could understand init scripts with very little effort but what a sad virtue, to dare to go no further than what an afternoon of exploration might get you.
- vinceguidry 1y ago
  I don't fucking hate systemd. I'm marginally glad it exists. I just don't want to live under it's despotic regime. You might like it because you think trains running on time is more important than freedom. You're the one coming at me with fucking attitude, like a 16 year old who just discovered IntelliJ. I have done the exploration, then looked online for why everything is so damn complicated now. It's because systemd colonized the world. It's not just an init system, it's everything below the userland. And a lot of those components are very poorly designed. And it's this big ball of mush where if you use one component, thy must use them all. It's so bad Arch does not support replacing systemd, like at all. You're totally on your own. Go ahead, try replacing systemd components in an Arch system. I'll wait. And lose the fucking attitude.
  - jauntywundrkind 1y ago
    I semi-respectfully disagree that I've given you undue attitude. One of the things I really enjoyed about the Flix programming language submission today was running across their principles section. Right off the top of the list: > Simple is not easy > We believe in Rich Hickey's creed: simple is not easy. We prefer a language that gets things right to one that makes things easy. Such a language might take longer to learn in the short run, but its simplicity pays off in the long run. In my view, yes, there are warts to systemd, but it is an operable understandable system which has a hard fought simplicity to it. I can go to any systemd computer and get a good idea of what's running, understand how it's wired. I use common practices and configs to change or drop in config. My feeling is that a lot of people want easy. That systemd doesn't pass the easy test. The past? The past was enormously complicated. It was complicated because every shop has its own way of configuring things. Every shop has their own tools to assess system state, their own way to configure subsystems like logins, dns, networking, logging, time sync, booting. There were countless countless easy answers, a path littered with the bodies of dead easy answers to this or that concern. And you needed an easy answer for each concern; easy didn't go hard to integrate the different factors. That past was a horrible mess of easy. Systemd feels complex, but compared to the past, there is a persistent understandable simplicity that is a raw joy to use. Things make sense. When you see one thing, you sort of learn how the next works. The back to the woods rejectionism that springs up today is a bizarre weird thing; folks have not seen how wildly different and bedazzling system management used to be, within and across orgs. You might not appreciate why but there's very very good reasons, and I'm fact, the world is inherently complex, there's aot to do, and systemd has created a wonderful pervasive cross-sectional (via it's many opt-in components) "easy" that harnesses and enables the complexity that is, in a sensible glorious way. ("This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.")