31–40 of 114 posts
I've been a fan of systemd even if just for how much simpler creating services is. I just need to write a simple config file instead of a complex init script.
No, it's terrible. I think what they mean by "success" here is that it functions, and is easier to use and more sturdy than init scripts. But any number of things would have been better than those. Instead of writing and adopting one or more, Linux allowed Redhat to take over the last piece of itself, its spine, after which Redhat sold itself to IBM. Linux is an IBM product. They basically mediate all Linux access to…
Who exactly was going to write the systemd alternative? If by "Linux" you mean the kernel devs, that was never going to happen-- systemd is a middleware stack living in userspace, the kernel guys were never going to get involved. If you mean some distro, other distros did propose some alternatives to systemd back in the day (e.g. upstart), and they all eventually abandoned them and switched to systemd instead, because systemd was better.
I still see no counterarguments here. Meanwhile, systemd, like cancer, is eating Linux from the inside, breaking its flexibility and therefore future resilence:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42918448
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42889792
(I reposted my comment from previous submission)
I've worked as a sysadmin/devops for a double digit number of years. Across companies, jobs, and hobbyist collaborators - I've never met someone who didn't at least like systemd, if not sing its praises. It made so many incredibly painful things about Linux administration disappear.
I am not a sysadmin -- so I keep forgetting the command to see logs cause I only need it once every 3 months. So, systemd change is a pain for me.
AI is so helpful for doing those kinds of tasks in the terminal that you only do a couple times a year and can never remember the exact incantation
I personally love the init/service/unit-file portion of systemd and have few complaints. It has a lot of powerful features for security, cron, etc that are very simple to use. I also really like journald. The parts I don’t really like are the half baked “ancillary” managers like resolvd, which are frankly baffling to use and tend to make simple things needlessly difficult.
But that's just like the old init & logging systems. They mostly worked, and yes it was annoying to relearn a new way of doing things. But the new way is better.
I've got software that works with resolvconf, NetworkManager and resolved. I definitely prefer resolved.
Yes, the cost of switching likely exceeds the benefits for you, and likely for many greybeards. But for those in complicated situations, and for the next generation of sysadmins who never have to learn the old way, resolved is nice.
For UN*X people, all it does is move Linux closer to emulating Microsoft Windows. It has left the UN*X philosophy behind. With secure boot and once Wayland becomes a real thing, the last step is in place. All that will be needed to become a M/S Windows Clone is geo-location and full DRM. That means you will only be able to take screen prints of "approved" applications. I heard SUSE may enable a kind of geo-location, not sure if I read that article correctly though.
For now, at least there are the *BSDs, they allow me to make a PC work the way I want it to, not a way Fortune 500 Companies dictate it should work.