51–60 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fragmentation is what makes Linux great imo. I'm not against systemd per se but I am against monoculture.
And what are your thoughts on deploying software to a fragmented system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fragmentation is what makes Linux great imo. I'm not against systemd per se but I am against monoculture.
And what are your thoughts on deploying software to a fragmented system?
It is interesting that Linux is far more widely used than alternatives that are not fragmented (e.g. FreeBSD) and has not standardised on one distro. Different people have different needs and preferences. People using Debian, Alpine, and NixOS are unlikely to agree on what they want.
I mainly use Ubuntu, so I know about systemd, but what is OpenRC? Why is there such a split, and why are people arguing about it in the comments? Could someone kindly explain it to me? I only know how to control Linux through systemctl, and I don't know much beyond that. It seems like the components are different, but I'd appreciate it if someone could explain it to me.
I have a curious question. My local setup has worked for me for ages ever since arch decided to switch to systemd. Same on the servers I deal with, after Debian's switch. At the same time, I can say I'm not involved with inner workings of a Linux system enough, to be affected by init system change and the pain it might bring. In other means consider me an average Joe of the Linux world. Hence this question: If it suc…
The very same people that hate systemd for "being a monolith" and limiting choice are usually also love X and hate Wayland where they can manage to explain how being a monolith is suddenly good.
Especially that systemd is pretty modular - at least the actual systemd program running as PID 1. It also refers to a project with many optional modules running under the same name, but that's like KDE having a file manager and complaining that plasma DE is a monolith.
I'm confused... isn't Devuan exactly this?
Well - it is an alternative to debian and in many ways is debian. But the counter-question is: why should debian users HAVE to use systemd? This is a much more fundamental question. Devuan solved it via forking. I think the proper way to handle this is to be able to offer both. I think gentoo went that approach. Debian went the "my-way-or-the-highway" route, which objectively is worse, even if understandable (less to…
Eventually, the pain of supporting everything became too much and debian did go with "my way or the highway", which I supported at the time and still do. I have no idea how that could be "objectively worse", it's very obviously a tradeoff to me. If your packages have to work on any init system, they can not benefit from any particular init system's features and have to work with the lowest common denominator. Every service has to hack around the lack of working state management with pidfile hacks and such.
In my opinion, it's better for a distro to pick any single init system than to try to support them all by limiting all packages to SysV style init scripts. Yes, user choice is important, but that can and does happen via distro choice. Alpine or Devuan are right there if you need them. Linux is fragmented enough, we don't need every distro to be a microcosm of the fractured overall Linux landscape.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't these features be toggled?
They're separate programs and system services which all more or less just do their own thing, just developed under the systemd umbrella. So it can't be "toggled", you can just not use the parts of systemd you don't want. But it's meant to work as a cohesive system when everything in systemd is used together. FWIW, I think it's great that someone is trying to make a coherent set of system services for Linux. Things te…
I know they've attached all these projects to the systemd brand because they thought it would beneficial but it's hard not to wonder if we could avoid all those discussions if the umbrella project was called something different...
Not long in the future we'll have "Systemd Linux".
Systemd resistance is silly to me. Systemd is what is turning Linux into a viable modern OS. You need something to tie all the parts of the OS together with a unified API, otherwise you'll be fighting fragmentation constantly. I don't like the age verification thing either, but all systemd did was add a field for it, it's still up to your distro to use it.