Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Systemd Brand

brand.systemd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: Systemd Brand

#61

Post by JackRabbitSlim »

artonge wrote: post #21

Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ? I seems to me that it is quite useful and easy to use.

Let me ask the other end. What context do you have to compare it to what it replaced for any given use case? Can you tell me why its good? Can you tell me why its better? What problems it "fixes"?

Reasons to dislike systemd as a professional sys admin?

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402 - brick EFI based systems!

https://twitter.com/bitfield/status/736868148348063744?lang=... -- Systemd broke your very mature stable application like screen and tmux?

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-15688 - Root a box on bootup with poison DHCP offers

I can keep going, but how are you doing on my questions?

Re: Systemd Brand

#62

Post by fwxwi »

calcifer wrote: post #38
fwxwi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah that is true. That reminds me that they should only be an init system and not Cthulhu. Friendly reminder that they managed to infiltrate all distros by creating a hard dependency from GNOME to systemd, which they could only pull off because both projects belong to the same corporation.

> infiltrate all distros > hard dependency from GNOME to systemd > both projects belong to the same corporation It is honestly impressive how you've managed to fit three different factually incorrect statements in a single sentence. Kudos.

GNOME and systemd are funded almost completely by Red Hat and their biggest contributors are full-time Red Hat employees.

GNOME does not run at all without systemd.

Even the biggest Linux distros, like Gentoo, struggle to create a patchset to modify GNOME so it does not require systemd; every new version of GNOME takes months to reach Gentoo stable. Most distros have bent the knee and switched to systemd because they had no other option, as GNOME is the most used Linux desktop so they kinda call the shots.

Re: Systemd Brand

#63

Post by MereInterest »

atonse wrote: post #56

I too don't get the systemd hate. I like systemd precisely because the components are nicely integrated with each other. It seems like what we would design after learning the lessons of the last 15-20 years of how to manage a linux/unix machine. I would assume more programmer types would like that the redundant "intelligence" that was placed in every init script is now gone, and replaced by a common core that allows…

When the default became breaking of screen, tmux, emacs --daemon, nohup, etc, I started disliking systemd. That the major distributions have overridden that default does not excuse systemd from having made that default.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797075

Re: Systemd Brand

#64

Post by MereInterest »

kstrauser wrote: post #49
artonge wrote: post #21

Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ? I seems to me that it is quite useful and easy to use.

The short version is that Unix has traditionally been built around small tools, well-tested and optimized, that did one thing and did it very well. Systemd is often perceived as kind of a "betrayal" of that idea, as a big system that tries to do everything. A lot of mistrust comes from that criticism.

To add to that, small tools are beneficial to the ecosystem, because they can be replaced as needed. Systemd takes advantage of this to replace existing tools, but cannot itself be easily replaced.

Re: Systemd Brand

#65

Post by esarbe »

sergiomattei wrote: post #40
artonge wrote: post #21

Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ? I seems to me that it is quite useful and easy to use.

Because it's trendy to hate on systemd. It's a bandwagon. Really, that's it. There's technical reasons for really advanced users, but for average users systemd works just fine, and it's easy to use. In my experience, it's been a pleasure to use.

That's about my experience too. Systemd just works. It's easy to create new systemd units for all kind of dependent services and resources. Be it server or desktop; systemd just does it's thing and it's bloody good at it.

(shrug)

Hater's will hate, I guess?

Re: Systemd Brand

#66

Post by atonse »

caiocaiocaio wrote: post #48
artonge wrote: post #21

Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ? I seems to me that it is quite useful and easy to use.

Building a Linux distro was like playing with Lego: the pieces were very interchangeable (in practice there were difficulties, but usually ones that were fun and rewarding to resolve; "fun and rewarding" is the exact opposite of SystemD). SystemD also fails quietly or with useless errors and makes problems hard to diagnose - so a bug not directly caused by SystemD looks like it comes from SystemD because SystemD slim…

Can you expand on what you feel is over-engineered?

Re: Systemd Brand

#67

Post by esarbe »

JohnFen wrote: post #50
sergiomattei wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's trendy to hate on systemd. It's a bandwagon. Really, that's it. There's technical reasons for really advanced users, but for average users systemd works just fine, and it's easy to use. In my experience, it's been a pleasure to use.

That's not true or fair. That you've had a wonderful experience with it doesn't mean that others don't have legitimate issues with it.

Just because there's a vocal minority that complains very loudly doesn't mean it doesn't work for most users out there.

The distribution maintainers have spoken; systemd is a vastly superior to any alternative out there. It's no contest, really. It makes building and maintaining complex and dynamic system setups laughably easy. So easy that just about every distribution maintainer threw their arms up in the air and said "Fuck that constantly breaking, inconsistent, unportable, unmaintainable init script shit that's SystemV and move to some thing sane."

I've yet to work with a system engineer that dislikes systemd. Has Not Yet Happened.

People complaining about systemd is like people complaining that these newfangled LED lights are not producing enough heat.

Re: Systemd Brand

#68

Post by esarbe »

caiocaiocaio wrote: post #48
artonge wrote: post #21

Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ? I seems to me that it is quite useful and easy to use.

Building a Linux distro was like playing with Lego: the pieces were very interchangeable (in practice there were difficulties, but usually ones that were fun and rewarding to resolve; "fun and rewarding" is the exact opposite of SystemD). SystemD also fails quietly or with useless errors and makes problems hard to diagnose - so a bug not directly caused by SystemD looks like it comes from SystemD because SystemD slim…

Your name-calling disqualifies you and discredits any valid argument you might have had.

Re: Systemd Brand

#69

Post by esarbe »

calcifer wrote: post #38
fwxwi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah that is true. That reminds me that they should only be an init system and not Cthulhu. Friendly reminder that they managed to infiltrate all distros by creating a hard dependency from GNOME to systemd, which they could only pull off because both projects belong to the same corporation.

> infiltrate all distros > hard dependency from GNOME to systemd > both projects belong to the same corporation It is honestly impressive how you've managed to fit three different factually incorrect statements in a single sentence. Kudos.

It's amazing, isn't it? And he makes it seem so effortlessly!

Re: Systemd Brand

#70

Post by esarbe »

fwxwi wrote: post #62
calcifer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> infiltrate all distros > hard dependency from GNOME to systemd > both projects belong to the same corporation It is honestly impressive how you've managed to fit three different factually incorrect statements in a single sentence. Kudos.

GNOME and systemd are funded almost completely by Red Hat and their biggest contributors are full-time Red Hat employees. GNOME does not run at all without systemd. Even the biggest Linux distros, like Gentoo, struggle to create a patchset to modify GNOME so it does not require systemd; every new version of GNOME takes months to reach Gentoo stable. Most distros have bent the knee and switched to systemd because they…

Rrrrraaiiight.. Because it's sooo much easier to switch a whole distrubution to a new init system instead of....

Just providing a replacement library for the library that the systemd maintainers took on the burden of maintaining. Right!

Dude, you sound like a conspiracy nut. It's constantly amazing to what length of self-delusion systemd haters are willing to go.

Just. Woah.

Post reply on HN