6 ms·

To this day I have not found a single modern argument against systemd that is a technical one (I tried systemd but it does not support x which openrc does), ins

by 0dayz 3mo ago

To this day I have not found a single modern argument against systemd that is a technical one (I tried systemd but it does not support x which openrc does), instead it's these vague bike shed arguments (Unix philosophy, anti-centralization and "bloat" ). I can't wrap my head around it, since those 3 are a "you" problem, systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts.

LtWorf 3mo ago
I found a few bugs where journald was losing data for example. I reported them and they got fixed in later releases. Of course I still got called a neckbeard and got told that I didn't like systemd because I'm a dinosaur and so on. So I have a really hard time to take positions such as your seriously to be honest.
- 0dayz 3mo ago
  If you mean that there are times systemd has a critical bug; sure the same way x11, kernel modules or drivers have critical bugs are annoying. You can always point to where I said you are a neckbeard, so I do not get the "hard time" angle. You can not like systemd, but the arguments for it is silly, and that is fine it's your machine and I don't care as long as people stop spreading FUD on such awful grounds. Say in contrast with BTRFS or BcacheFS there are genuine issues with those and there are technical philosophical arguments (I want journaling, I do not want or need CoW features, snapshot? never heard of her).
  - LtWorf 3mo ago
    You are precisely part of the mob I was describing. Perhaps you did not say exactly word by word "neckbeard" but you are dismissing all the arguments as FUD. As I said, when distributions were already using systemd by default I installed it and tried it for one hour and found 3 different ways it was losing data sent to journald. According to you when a logging daemon loses log entries, stating that it's not ready for real use is FUD. Funny how you think of yourself as being the reasonable one here :)
    - 0dayz 3mo ago
      Right, why did you feel the need to straw man me to somehow justify your victim complex? You can cite me for when I said all arguments are FUD, or even that yours was. And if your issue is that it's not ready, okay? That had nothing to do with my point. So let me repeat, do you swear to never use a certain Linux kernel module because it has critical bugs? If yes okay good that is a most likely temporary technical argument so why spread FUD about it?
graemep 3mo ago
> systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts. What makes systemd different from other init systems is that it is specifically designed to work with the other parts. It aims to provide a standardised OS on top of the Linux kernel. That is the advantage, and the disadvantage, of systemd.
simoncion 3mo ago
> systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts. cough > To this day I have not found a single modern argument against systemd that is a technical one... Good for you. [0] The project is great until, very, very suddenly it is not. May you continue to have many happy and trouble-free decades with it. But when you do hit a bug whose cause is dreadfully complex [1], or get some useful, documented behavior you depend on altered so that it's unusable for you for no better reason than "it was inconvenient to keep permitting people to do that", you'll understand why some folks strongly dislike the project. [0] Genuinely! [1] ...so much so that the maintainers refuse to work on it...
xuhu 3mo ago
If Unix philosophy is what's keeping systemd from requiring a Microsoft account during install, I'm all for it.
- lawrencejgd 3mo ago
  If everything followed the UNIX philosophy then we wouldn't be here, because for opening this single page, or the author's one you need a gigantic and monstrous program like a browser that has a lot of features and functions that the philosophy would forbid.
- 0dayz 3mo ago
  Why you need systemd for that when you can just enable pam_microsoft_account.so?
robalni 3mo ago
Sorry for nitpicking, maybe you didn't think through the choice of word, but what is a "technical" argument and how is it different from other types of arguments? I think all arguments about a technology like systemd need to have a technical part (what systemd does) and a (sometimes implicit) personal part (what I think about it). If it doesn't have the technical part then I don't think it's an argument about systemd at all. The difference I can see between your example arguments is that the "technical" one is more precise. "Not supporting x" is pretty specific while "being bloated" is not very precise. But of course it could be more precise if you say something like "systemd is made of x megabytes of code. I only want the code I need which I think can be implemented in 1% of that" or just "systemd includes parts x, y and z which I don't want". So did you by "technical" just mean "precise" or is there another meaning that I missed?
- 0dayz 3mo ago
  Technical as in there a precise and empirical reason for it such as a technological reason for it. The bloat argument is perfectly suitable once you remove its derogatory meaning and instead say resource constraints such as when working in embedded.

by 0dayz 3mo ago

LtWorf 3mo ago

I found a few bugs where journald was losing data for example. I reported them and they got fixed in later releases. Of course I still got called a neckbeard and got told that I didn't like systemd because I'm a dinosaur and so on. So I have a really hard time to take positions such as your seriously to be honest.

0dayz 3mo ago
If you mean that there are times systemd has a critical bug; sure the same way x11, kernel modules or drivers have critical bugs are annoying. You can always point to where I said you are a neckbeard, so I do not get the "hard time" angle. You can not like systemd, but the arguments for it is silly, and that is fine it's your machine and I don't care as long as people stop spreading FUD on such awful grounds. Say in contrast with BTRFS or BcacheFS there are genuine issues with those and there are technical philosophical arguments (I want journaling, I do not want or need CoW features, snapshot? never heard of her).
- LtWorf 3mo ago
  You are precisely part of the mob I was describing. Perhaps you did not say exactly word by word "neckbeard" but you are dismissing all the arguments as FUD. As I said, when distributions were already using systemd by default I installed it and tried it for one hour and found 3 different ways it was losing data sent to journald. According to you when a logging daemon loses log entries, stating that it's not ready for real use is FUD. Funny how you think of yourself as being the reasonable one here :)
  - 0dayz 3mo ago
    Right, why did you feel the need to straw man me to somehow justify your victim complex? You can cite me for when I said all arguments are FUD, or even that yours was. And if your issue is that it's not ready, okay? That had nothing to do with my point. So let me repeat, do you swear to never use a certain Linux kernel module because it has critical bugs? If yes okay good that is a most likely temporary technical argument so why spread FUD about it?

graemep 3mo ago

> systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts. What makes systemd different from other init systems is that it is specifically designed to work with the other parts. It aims to provide a standardised OS on top of the Linux kernel. That is the advantage, and the disadvantage, of systemd.

simoncion 3mo ago

> systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts. cough > To this day I have not found a single modern argument against systemd that is a technical one... Good for you. [0] The project is great until, very, very suddenly it is not. May you continue to have many happy and trouble-free decades with it. But when you do hit a bug whose cause is dreadfully complex [1], or get some useful, documented behavior you depend on altered so that it's unusable for you for no better reason than "it was inconvenient to keep permitting people to do that", you'll understand why some folks strongly dislike the project. [0] Genuinely! [1] ...so much so that the maintainers refuse to work on it...

xuhu 3mo ago

If Unix philosophy is what's keeping systemd from requiring a Microsoft account during install, I'm all for it.

lawrencejgd 3mo ago
If everything followed the UNIX philosophy then we wouldn't be here, because for opening this single page, or the author's one you need a gigantic and monstrous program like a browser that has a lot of features and functions that the philosophy would forbid.
0dayz 3mo ago
Why you need systemd for that when you can just enable pam_microsoft_account.so?

robalni 3mo ago

Sorry for nitpicking, maybe you didn't think through the choice of word, but what is a "technical" argument and how is it different from other types of arguments? I think all arguments about a technology like systemd need to have a technical part (what systemd does) and a (sometimes implicit) personal part (what I think about it). If it doesn't have the technical part then I don't think it's an argument about systemd at all. The difference I can see between your example arguments is that the "technical" one is more precise. "Not supporting x" is pretty specific while "being bloated" is not very precise. But of course it could be more precise if you say something like "systemd is made of x megabytes of code. I only want the code I need which I think can be implemented in 1% of that" or just "systemd includes parts x, y and z which I don't want". So did you by "technical" just mean "precise" or is there another meaning that I missed?

0dayz 3mo ago
Technical as in there a precise and empirical reason for it such as a technological reason for it. The bloat argument is perfectly suitable once you remove its derogatory meaning and instead say resource constraints such as when working in embedded.