17 ms·

ZFS is amazing and while there are many would be clones there is only one ZFS. I used (and pushed) it everywhere I could and first encountered on Solaris befor

ZFS is amazing and while there are many would be clones there is only one ZFS. I used (and pushed) it everywhere I could and first encountered on Solaris before FBSD. Even had it on my Mac workstation almost 18 years ago (unsupported) -- aside I will never forgive that asshole Larry Ellison for killing OpenSolaris. NEVER. Systemd is the worst PoS every written. RCs are effective and elegant. Systemd is reason enough to avoid Linux but I still hold my nose and use it because I have to.

BrouteMinou 10mo ago
But you are aware there are distros without systemd, right?
- arthurfirst 10mo ago
  Yes. Over the years I've used just about every linux distro from Slackware and RH up to nix + arch, as well programming on Solaris, IRIX, SCO, OS/400 and even Tandem --look it up it's pretty obscure! But I just use FreeBSD mostly now. There's pretty much nothing I can't do on FreeBSD that I would get with one Linux or another. Not much of a gamer so maybe that factors in..
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
tombert 10mo ago
Sorry, can you be specific about what's terrible about systemd? I really would like to know why it's the "worst piece of shit ever written".
- MangoToupe 10mo ago
  I can't speak for others, but I find it poorly documented and only rarely improves on the systems it replaced, and it invalidates decades of high quality documentation that you can easily find on the internet. It's possible the transition will pay off one day with eg a usable graphic interfaces for system configuration that might compete with that of mac os, but as of yet, no such thing has materialized. This is especially true compared to how beautifully well and consistently the BSDs tend to document their init and configuration systems. Or Mac OS, again—launchd is still way easier to use and far more of a "fire and forget" system without adding complicated interfaces for unrelated stuff like network interfaces and logging. But that has always been true as well.
- rootnod3 10mo ago
  It is unnecessarily complex to begin with. On top of that, the maintainers are historically not the most open to criticism and try to aggressively push the adoption. So much so that Gnome for example now has very strong dependecies on systemd which makes it very difficult to adopt Gnome on non-systemd systems unless you wanna throw a bunch of patches at it. This hard coupling alone is something that I wouldn't want to rely on, ever.
  - arthurfirst 10mo ago
    THIS. Also what problem does it solve that RC scripts can't accomplish? They are much more readable and less complex. What is the benefit of all that added complexity? Even more to the point the business case for it in a professional setting? I've been wondering that for a long time.
    - rootnod3 10mo ago
      It autodiscovers the dependency chain or shit like that? If you got 500+ services that need to be orchestrated you honestly have a very different problem. I love the simplicity of RC scripts. Easy to understand, easy to debug, it just fucking works. Simplicity is king, because it's understandable. A behemoth like systemd feels like it requires a PhD. Systemd also runs 100% against the Unix/Linux philosophy of composability and single purpose.
      - arthurfirst 10mo ago
        THIS ---- Systemd also runs 100% against the Unix/Linux philosophy of composability and single purpose.
      - tombert 10mo ago
        If you need to make sure that the network stack starts after the usb stack and that starts after the pcie stack and that starts after the … then systemd is considerably easier than SysV init. You’re handwaving away something that is pretty important. You can say that having 500 services is its own problem but it’s also a reality, even on desktop operating systems.
- vrighter 10mo ago
  Because "it's one program doing too many things and that goes against the unix philosophy" In reality systemd is 69 different binaries (only one of which runs as pid 1), all developed under the same project, designed to work together.
  - arthurfirst 10mo ago
    YES -- Because "it's one program doing too many things and that goes against the unix philosophy"
  - tombert 10mo ago
    I don’t see how they can be considered “one program to so many things” when it’s 69 different binaries. Yes they’re under the same project, but the same can be said about FreeBSD itself. They’re designed to work together but as far as I am aware there’s no reason you couldn’t replace individual binaries with different ones, though admittedly I have never done that.
    - vrighter 10mo ago
      I completely agree with you. It is very baffling to me too. But that is literally the reason parroted the most. Linux is a monolith that includes a bunch of drivers for things you will never need (on a typical distro, not when you compile your own kernel). It does way more than I need it to, and it most definitely does more than one thing. But of course that's ok in that case
- sellmesoap 10mo ago
  The systemd privacy issue of DNS fallback to cloudflare is something that comes to mind. No shade on cloudflare, I love them despite the privacy implications their business entails.

BrouteMinou 10mo ago

But you are aware there are distros without systemd, right?

arthurfirst 10mo ago
Yes. Over the years I've used just about every linux distro from Slackware and RH up to nix + arch, as well programming on Solaris, IRIX, SCO, OS/400 and even Tandem --look it up it's pretty obscure! But I just use FreeBSD mostly now. There's pretty much nothing I can't do on FreeBSD that I would get with one Linux or another. Not much of a gamer so maybe that factors in..

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

tombert 10mo ago

Sorry, can you be specific about what's terrible about systemd? I really would like to know why it's the "worst piece of shit ever written".

MangoToupe 10mo ago
I can't speak for others, but I find it poorly documented and only rarely improves on the systems it replaced, and it invalidates decades of high quality documentation that you can easily find on the internet. It's possible the transition will pay off one day with eg a usable graphic interfaces for system configuration that might compete with that of mac os, but as of yet, no such thing has materialized. This is especially true compared to how beautifully well and consistently the BSDs tend to document their init and configuration systems. Or Mac OS, again—launchd is still way easier to use and far more of a "fire and forget" system without adding complicated interfaces for unrelated stuff like network interfaces and logging. But that has always been true as well.
rootnod3 10mo ago
It is unnecessarily complex to begin with. On top of that, the maintainers are historically not the most open to criticism and try to aggressively push the adoption. So much so that Gnome for example now has very strong dependecies on systemd which makes it very difficult to adopt Gnome on non-systemd systems unless you wanna throw a bunch of patches at it. This hard coupling alone is something that I wouldn't want to rely on, ever.
- arthurfirst 10mo ago
  THIS. Also what problem does it solve that RC scripts can't accomplish? They are much more readable and less complex. What is the benefit of all that added complexity? Even more to the point the business case for it in a professional setting? I've been wondering that for a long time.
  - rootnod3 10mo ago
    It autodiscovers the dependency chain or shit like that? If you got 500+ services that need to be orchestrated you honestly have a very different problem. I love the simplicity of RC scripts. Easy to understand, easy to debug, it just fucking works. Simplicity is king, because it's understandable. A behemoth like systemd feels like it requires a PhD. Systemd also runs 100% against the Unix/Linux philosophy of composability and single purpose.
    - arthurfirst 10mo ago
      THIS ---- Systemd also runs 100% against the Unix/Linux philosophy of composability and single purpose.
    - tombert 10mo ago
      If you need to make sure that the network stack starts after the usb stack and that starts after the pcie stack and that starts after the … then systemd is considerably easier than SysV init. You’re handwaving away something that is pretty important. You can say that having 500 services is its own problem but it’s also a reality, even on desktop operating systems.
vrighter 10mo ago
Because "it's one program doing too many things and that goes against the unix philosophy" In reality systemd is 69 different binaries (only one of which runs as pid 1), all developed under the same project, designed to work together.
- arthurfirst 10mo ago
  YES -- Because "it's one program doing too many things and that goes against the unix philosophy"
- tombert 10mo ago
  I don’t see how they can be considered “one program to so many things” when it’s 69 different binaries. Yes they’re under the same project, but the same can be said about FreeBSD itself. They’re designed to work together but as far as I am aware there’s no reason you couldn’t replace individual binaries with different ones, though admittedly I have never done that.
  - vrighter 10mo ago
    I completely agree with you. It is very baffling to me too. But that is literally the reason parroted the most. Linux is a monolith that includes a bunch of drivers for things you will never need (on a typical distro, not when you compile your own kernel). It does way more than I need it to, and it most definitely does more than one thing. But of course that's ok in that case
sellmesoap 10mo ago
The systemd privacy issue of DNS fallback to cloudflare is something that comes to mind. No shade on cloudflare, I love them despite the privacy implications their business entails.