5 ms·

As a passionate systemd hater I still will not go back to using older bash-based initsystems and thus devuan. I strongly believe that systemd brand is a worst

As a passionate systemd hater I still will not go back to using older bash-based initsystems and thus devuan. I strongly believe that systemd brand is a worst thing that happened to Linux, hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space, but at the same time I have to admit that systemd-as-pid1 is the best init system out there.

embedding-shape 9mo ago
> hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space What "innovations" have been prevented or hindered by systemd? I guess you could argue "well, we can't know" but then what is the argument here really? I'm guessing there is something concrete your thinking about here, that systemd made impossible, but I'm not understanding what you're referencing, I can't recall anything like that.
- blueflow 9mo ago
  alternate libc's like musl. the eglibc controversy showed this was necessary but poettering initially refused to support a "non-useful libc". his words.
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    But musl exists today? And even I use it from time to time, mostly I think in Alpine Linux. How was musl hindered if we can use it? Maybe it isn't as popular as you would have wanted, but I don't think that's the same as claiming it's been hindered by systemd.
    - egorfine 9mo ago
      > But musl exists today Yes and the systemd crowd wants to embrace and extinguish it as well [1] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS
      - embedding-shape 9mo ago
        I got to line 1500 before I gave up, what from that indicates they want to "extinguish" musl?
        egorfine 9mo ago
        1. Support musl 2. Become mainstream with musl distros 3. Become dependency in practical terms 4. Then even software optimized for musl-based distros has to deal and support systemd
        embedding-shape 9mo ago
        But do you have any proof for beyond #1? Seems like a far jump here, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.
        egorfine 9mo ago
        Nope. It's my view of the situation and I'm confident that will be the case. Not that it's an evil plan. Just a nature taking its course. This is how I see it.
      - the_why_of_y 9mo ago
        So if systemd refuses to support musl, it's "hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space", and when they change their mind and work to add support for musl, it's "to embrace and extinguish it".
        egorfine 9mo ago
        Paradoxically that's how I see it. Being an old fart and sysvinit pundit I am course wrong.
IshKebab 9mo ago
I remember the time before systemd and there wasn't any innovation happening - everyone was content with hacky bash scripts.
- bandrami 9mo ago
  Legible, discoverable, debuggable. They listed the commands the computer needed to run, in the order it needed to run them, to get the system running. It was absolutely beautiful. And then LSB came along and broke it, and as a result of that systemd now manages my home directory and cron tables. Shame, really.
  - Yizahi 9mo ago
    Systems were simpler then and demands were lower. So what if the system boots sequentially and takes two days to boot up. But try to make it parallel and faster, and the whole house of scripts falls down or becomes illegible, undiscoverable and completely unmaintainable mess.
    - account42 9mo ago
      My system is still simple and I still don't have whatever requirements SystemD is needed for. OpenRC does support parallel startup but for a desktop it's already fast enough without it - my whole Linux bootup sequence is faster than BIOS POST.
      - Yizahi 9mo ago
        I wasn't talking about your system, I was talking about many systems everywhere. Just as an example, one of them may be powering your home internet and fast and reliable systemd boot is one of the reasons why multiple minutes had been saved on a hardware power cycle and service downtime. Regardless of my opinion, this choice has been done by much more knowledgeable people and results are clear. Personally, I would pick a systemd distro any time over script init based.
  - IshKebab 9mo ago
graemep 9mo ago
> As a passionate systemd hater I still will not go back to using older bash-based initsystems and thus devuan. Devuan lets you choose an init system so you do not have to use sys V init: https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom A number of other distros also use init systems other than sysv init or systemd: Void, Alphine, etc.
PunchyHamster 9mo ago
if other systems had actual good idea about how to do pid 1, they'd be used. Systemd despise its issues solved a lot of problems. There were many before but most just aimed to be slightly less shit sysv. The problem of systemd was the fact Lennart Poettering is smartest person in the universe and why the smartest person in the universe would bother to listen to feedback of any lesser beings ?
- t43562 9mo ago
  Other systems are getting used. They're just not getting adopted by the major distributions ...presumably because they've decided that conformity helps. But I'm happily not using systemd and it's not something that causes me any particular trouble.
- egorfine 9mo ago
  > they'd be used That's not how the world works. Oftentimes (most times) political decisions take place with zero or little merit. > The problem of systemd was the fact Lennart Poettering As I see it, his incredible arrogancy is the main source of the destructive vibe with systemd. He is actually the smartest person in this space, but paradoxically that doesn't make him right.
t43562 9mo ago
The great thing is that there actually ARE options that are far better than init scripts and they don't have to be like systemd.
- egorfine 9mo ago
  This is technically true. Problem is, they are way out of mainstream and thus are not really practical outside of niche applications like containers.
  - t43562 9mo ago
    ... or other niches like my laptops and desktops that I'm writing to you from.

embedding-shape 9mo ago

> hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space What "innovations" have been prevented or hindered by systemd? I guess you could argue "well, we can't know" but then what is the argument here really? I'm guessing there is something concrete your thinking about here, that systemd made impossible, but I'm not understanding what you're referencing, I can't recall anything like that.

blueflow 9mo ago
alternate libc's like musl. the eglibc controversy showed this was necessary but poettering initially refused to support a "non-useful libc". his words.
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  But musl exists today? And even I use it from time to time, mostly I think in Alpine Linux. How was musl hindered if we can use it? Maybe it isn't as popular as you would have wanted, but I don't think that's the same as claiming it's been hindered by systemd.
  - egorfine 9mo ago
    > But musl exists today Yes and the systemd crowd wants to embrace and extinguish it as well [1] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v259-rc1/NEWS
    - embedding-shape 9mo ago
      I got to line 1500 before I gave up, what from that indicates they want to "extinguish" musl?
      - egorfine 9mo ago
        1. Support musl 2. Become mainstream with musl distros 3. Become dependency in practical terms 4. Then even software optimized for musl-based distros has to deal and support systemd
        embedding-shape 9mo ago
        But do you have any proof for beyond #1? Seems like a far jump here, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.
        egorfine 9mo ago
        Nope. It's my view of the situation and I'm confident that will be the case. Not that it's an evil plan. Just a nature taking its course. This is how I see it.
    - the_why_of_y 9mo ago
      So if systemd refuses to support musl, it's "hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space", and when they change their mind and work to add support for musl, it's "to embrace and extinguish it".
      - egorfine 9mo ago
        Paradoxically that's how I see it. Being an old fart and sysvinit pundit I am course wrong.

IshKebab 9mo ago

I remember the time before systemd and there wasn't any innovation happening - everyone was content with hacky bash scripts.

bandrami 9mo ago
Legible, discoverable, debuggable. They listed the commands the computer needed to run, in the order it needed to run them, to get the system running. It was absolutely beautiful. And then LSB came along and broke it, and as a result of that systemd now manages my home directory and cron tables. Shame, really.
- Yizahi 9mo ago
  Systems were simpler then and demands were lower. So what if the system boots sequentially and takes two days to boot up. But try to make it parallel and faster, and the whole house of scripts falls down or becomes illegible, undiscoverable and completely unmaintainable mess.
  - account42 9mo ago
    My system is still simple and I still don't have whatever requirements SystemD is needed for. OpenRC does support parallel startup but for a desktop it's already fast enough without it - my whole Linux bootup sequence is faster than BIOS POST.
    - Yizahi 9mo ago
      I wasn't talking about your system, I was talking about many systems everywhere. Just as an example, one of them may be powering your home internet and fast and reliable systemd boot is one of the reasons why multiple minutes had been saved on a hardware power cycle and service downtime. Regardless of my opinion, this choice has been done by much more knowledgeable people and results are clear. Personally, I would pick a systemd distro any time over script init based.
- IshKebab 9mo ago

graemep 9mo ago

> As a passionate systemd hater I still will not go back to using older bash-based initsystems and thus devuan. Devuan lets you choose an init system so you do not have to use sys V init: https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom A number of other distros also use init systems other than sysv init or systemd: Void, Alphine, etc.

PunchyHamster 9mo ago

if other systems had actual good idea about how to do pid 1, they'd be used. Systemd despise its issues solved a lot of problems. There were many before but most just aimed to be slightly less shit sysv. The problem of systemd was the fact Lennart Poettering is smartest person in the universe and why the smartest person in the universe would bother to listen to feedback of any lesser beings ?

t43562 9mo ago
Other systems are getting used. They're just not getting adopted by the major distributions ...presumably because they've decided that conformity helps. But I'm happily not using systemd and it's not something that causes me any particular trouble.
egorfine 9mo ago
> they'd be used That's not how the world works. Oftentimes (most times) political decisions take place with zero or little merit. > The problem of systemd was the fact Lennart Poettering As I see it, his incredible arrogancy is the main source of the destructive vibe with systemd. He is actually the smartest person in this space, but paradoxically that doesn't make him right.

t43562 9mo ago

The great thing is that there actually ARE options that are far better than init scripts and they don't have to be like systemd.

egorfine 9mo ago
This is technically true. Problem is, they are way out of mainstream and thus are not really practical outside of niche applications like containers.
- t43562 9mo ago
  ... or other niches like my laptops and desktops that I'm writing to you from.