4 ms·

Like the author, I am saddened by systemd. I'm not rabidly opposed to it. I use it because Debian uses it and I like debian. And in some ways, I like the consis

Like the author, I am saddened by systemd. I'm not rabidly opposed to it. I use it because Debian uses it and I like debian. And in some ways, I like the consistency better than the plethora of init script/run levels I used to have to deal with. But it does lack (to me) the Unix gestalt of having composable little pieces that could be pretty well put together and are each individually documentable and compose well in conceptual space as well. There was less surprises and nuanced side effects.

gausswho 11mo ago
Great timing this article. I came to HN to escape a frustration point where this blooming script behaves differently when wrapped in a systemd service than when I run it on its own. I suspect there's some systemd punctuatory dance with a throwaway character here or there to semaphore me off to neverneverland. It's so inscrutable sometimes.
uecker 11mo ago
I wholeheartedly I agree with the author and you. It is sad how Linux is incrementally reshaped based on ideas which often betray the original principles that made UNIX, it derivatives, and copies great. But it is on us to create alternatives. It is free software after all.
- pjmlp 11mo ago
  Principles that Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, DG/UX, Tru64, NeXTSTEP,.... have forgotten long before FOSS circles keep repeating them as some ideology kind of thing.
vincentkriek 11mo ago
As an init manager, systemd is the best thing that has happened to the wider linux ecosystem. Being able to indicate dependencies, document order and being able to let an application tell the init manager it is done and dependents of it can be started makes starting up way better. I understand the downsides people have of systemd, but I have the feeling the huge upside is often overlooked.
- MathMonkeyMan 11mo ago
  I've worked with init.d style init systems that had those features using special comments and sourced helper functions, but I bet if you wanted to do it all properly you'd end up with something like systemd. Or GNU Shepherd!
- graemep 11mo ago
  > As an init manager, The objection to it is not to it as an init manager. To quote the description from the systemd site: > systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system
- shevy-java 11mo ago
  It is more than merely an "init manager". And I disagree that it is the best thing ever - it is perfectly possible to operate linux without systemd. > but I have the feeling the huge upside is often overlooked. It is fine to objectively compare trade-offs. However had, it has to be a fair comparison; we can not start with "init manager" because systemd does a lot more, so how can a comparison to any software with less code be fair then? runit doesn't do much more than for initializing.
em500 11mo ago
Is Devuan not an option? It's explicitly advertised as Debian without systemd.
- Yossarrian22 11mo ago
  If someone is using Debian it’s likely because they want no frills Linux, with apt-get, and the reliable cadence of LTS releases. And the added benefit of if they run into a problem it’s likely somebody else has as well

gausswho 11mo ago

Great timing this article. I came to HN to escape a frustration point where this blooming script behaves differently when wrapped in a systemd service than when I run it on its own. I suspect there's some systemd punctuatory dance with a throwaway character here or there to semaphore me off to neverneverland. It's so inscrutable sometimes.

uecker 11mo ago

I wholeheartedly I agree with the author and you. It is sad how Linux is incrementally reshaped based on ideas which often betray the original principles that made UNIX, it derivatives, and copies great. But it is on us to create alternatives. It is free software after all.

pjmlp 11mo ago
Principles that Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, DG/UX, Tru64, NeXTSTEP,.... have forgotten long before FOSS circles keep repeating them as some ideology kind of thing.

vincentkriek 11mo ago

As an init manager, systemd is the best thing that has happened to the wider linux ecosystem. Being able to indicate dependencies, document order and being able to let an application tell the init manager it is done and dependents of it can be started makes starting up way better. I understand the downsides people have of systemd, but I have the feeling the huge upside is often overlooked.

MathMonkeyMan 11mo ago
I've worked with init.d style init systems that had those features using special comments and sourced helper functions, but I bet if you wanted to do it all properly you'd end up with something like systemd. Or GNU Shepherd!
graemep 11mo ago
> As an init manager, The objection to it is not to it as an init manager. To quote the description from the systemd site: > systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system
shevy-java 11mo ago
It is more than merely an "init manager". And I disagree that it is the best thing ever - it is perfectly possible to operate linux without systemd. > but I have the feeling the huge upside is often overlooked. It is fine to objectively compare trade-offs. However had, it has to be a fair comparison; we can not start with "init manager" because systemd does a lot more, so how can a comparison to any software with less code be fair then? runit doesn't do much more than for initializing.

em500 11mo ago

Is Devuan not an option? It's explicitly advertised as Debian without systemd.

Yossarrian22 11mo ago
If someone is using Debian it’s likely because they want no frills Linux, with apt-get, and the reliable cadence of LTS releases. And the added benefit of if they run into a problem it’s likely somebody else has as well