I don't resent systemd for existing, but I don't want to be forced to accept Lennart's shitty design decisions and it's clear he wants me to be since he successfully agitated for other critical components to hard depend on it. I want the option of opting out, which Lennart would deny me if he could.
At the end of the day, I just run Void (or MX Linux if I want something more Debian-flavored) and get on with my life.
Personally, I would have been ecstatic to see systemd if it hadn't have been tied directly to GNOME and thereby installed by every distribution that wanted to include GNOME. My main gripe with systemd is that every other system the main author of systemd has written has made my computer inoperable time and time again. I would have liked to have a choice of using systemd or waiting until I saw it become mature enough that I trusted it.
I just didn't want to be forced to use it in case history repeated itself. Opting out of systemd is ridiculously difficult due to that GNOME tie-in. It's one of the most important parts of my system.
I still would prefer not to have systemd, but I will admit that it works reasonably well for my purposes. I'm pretty upset about how it all went down, but that's life in the fast lane I guess. Where are the days when everybody ignored Linux? I should move to BSD ;-)
How about no? How about you not lecture to me that I only hate systemd because I'm just butthurt that Linux is changing, and I need to get with the program? Because that's how people who want to wrest control talk. It's like telling people that the only reason why they dislike Ghostbusters (2016) is because they're misogynists who feel threatened by strong women. Who are you to tell me how I feel and why I feel that way?
I really don't like systemd, but I'm glad that it exists. Because more free software is better than less free software. I just don't want to use it on the systems I run. And I don't want the entire Linux ecosystem to hard-depend on it. Lennart can implement all the cockamamie ideas he wants; as a software developer that's his right, and as a software developer myself I would be remiss in defending software freedom if I did not acknowledge and support his exercise of that right. Where I draw the line is the subsequent push to ensure that the Linux ecosystem breaks without systemd.
The tragedy of systemd is tight coupling. What makes Linux great is that I used to always have a choice - regarding what kernel I use, what editor, what shell, even what Init I use... Systemd changed all that. Distro makers gave up supporting alternatives because it would mean too much work. (I almost flipped out when I read somewhere they had to do it because of some Gnome-related component... I mean I don't care about Gnome, I don't even use X, but I have hundreds of servers to manage - now let's change everything because one guy said it's the only way...)
Nobody would make what Lennart did if we had a choice. Those who liked Systemd would use it, and the rest would use the init of their choice. As simple as that.
I already voted by removing systemd and moving to sysvinit during the period where debian-installer did not give me an option.
systemd is a constant security hazard, fails standard unix philosophy by doing one thing and one thing well, and is nigh impossible to audit.
systemd is a mistake, adopting it was a mistake, and it gives me nothing that either I don't need or want (not cloud/large orchestration stuff; standalone machines), or DO need or want but actual orchestration stuff gives me while also giving me tiny init systems (in some cases, yes, neutered systemd to limit the security implications and shear number of bugs) to bring my stripped down micro-instances up.
So, the Debian community voted, and for similar reasons as I voted. We don't want systemd, we never wanted systemd, and we will burn the distro down to get what we want. Redhat tried to use systemd to Microsoft-style Embrace, Extend, Extinguish their way into the entire Linux community, and we want nothing of it.
TBH, I currently feel the same way because of the opt-out, not opt-in situation. On one machine running Debian Sid I just found myself running systemd after an dist-upgrade..blowing my mind considering that I didn't choose Arch in the first place for the rolling release machine because of the systemd. But GNOME3 is to blame making systemd a hard dependency(Even if they mostly seem to be from the same camp, RH).
Actually, I don't mind systemd anymore. I hate the philosophy and attitude of the maintainer, but I haven't had any operational problems using systemd. It works, and it works pretty well. I just hate that I had no choice.
He's not going to because it doesn't affect him personally. And let's be honest, systemd isn't that bad, and has some benefits. It's not worth getting religious over.
You'll know there are too many dependencies on systemd when people who don't want it (Devuan, Slackware, openBSD) can't boot a decent system without it. I don't think we're in danger of that: people who don't want systemd don't need it.
There's still a number of modern distros that drop it by default like Denuvan and Void. I don't particularly hate systemd, but I really disagree with it's design philosophy and general layout these days. It's not that hard to sympathize with the people who grew frustrated with it's lack of modularity and tossed it in lieu of a better init system.
If I don't want to use it, I should be able to swap it out. I shouldn't have to patch Gnome, udev, and whatnot to not use systemd.
I don't have problems with systemd, what I feat is essential parts of GNU and Linux infrastructure becoming directly dependent on it, at the actual software level.
As others have said - I don't want to hijack this thread in favor of a systemd-yes-or-no argument. In fact, I made it a point not to use derogatory or inflammatory language in my post, and still got a bunch of downvotes.
you will find stories involving systemd here on HN over the past several years. I and many others oppose various aspects of systemd, but more importantly, we oppose its being a nearly-inescapable default on Debian. It's not like you can just remove it if you want something else.
Note that this is exactly the reason why anything Lennart does is met with vitriol. He can’t keep his hands out of the cookie jar and when challenged, he and his supporters bring on the excuses. It is not for Lennart or his supporters to decide what’s better for me. That’s for the distributors to decide. Systemd does not get to decide preferences and neither does it get to set defaults.
I have no problem with systemd but neither do I have a reason to use it (although I admit, Poettering's general attitude does bother me a bit).
As long as Slackware doesn't incorporate systemd and alternatives remain I'm fine. If alternative disappear, I guess I'll cross that bridge when it happens.
I want to try Void Linux one day, but a distro that throws away systemd because REASONS is completely anachronistic for me.
Say what you want, systemd is here to stay. Everybody's free to make a distro without it, but I wouldn't consider it for a full time workstation, at all.
I don’t care about philosophy; I don’t like being forced and I don’t like opaque systems where they aren’t required.
SystemD is essentially forced (for better or worse, not gonna argue) because it is a hard dependency for certain software and tightly integrated with other tools in the systemd ecosystem
It is opaque because I cannot read, modify or understand what it’s doing without breaking out gdb, heaven forbid I want to alter its behavior in a less than approved way.
This leads to weird situations like the MySQL unit executing a bash script to run: because systemd has limited preflight checking compared to alternatives.
Before someone claims I want sysvinit back: No, I don’t want that. I would simply prefer systemd to be smaller so that we can replace it with something better or more tailored should the need arise.
We’re locking ourselves in to prototype level software (which we best into working semi decently) with obstinate leadership team who deny any faults.
That is basically my position too, except the idea that Lennart has somehow caused people trouble with his projects, which is hilarious given how enthusiastically people adopt his software over the alternatives.
I really like systemd, though it has flaws. I was using Fedora at home, and Debian on servers when it was new. As soon as it was straightforward, I started using systemd on my Debian machines (building from source, when Debian was not systemd-based) and it solved a lot of issues I'd been having, made it dead simple to get new services up and running.
When Arch Linux switched to systemd, that was what convinced me to switch to Arch Linux on the desktop. I had been getting a lot of value out of systemd on Fedora, but I had wanted to try a proper rolling release.
I have a similar story with PulseAudio. I've owned many systems with no hardware mixer over the years, and the other options had been total trash.
PulseAudio actually worked. When I wanted a feature, it tended to be available on PulseAudio. In 2017, when I spent a lot of time between a laptop and a desktop (now I mostly just use a phone/PDA and a desktop), I liked being able to switch seamlessly between them.
I set up a network audio device as my second default sink (after local headphones) on both machines, so I could move my headphones between them, and whichever device was playing audio would play it through my headphones. It took hardly any fiddling about, thanks to Lennart's other project: Avahi.
Over the years, I hear a lot of people criticizing the software, but taking the functionality for granted. What systemd, PulseAudio, and Avahi do for ordinary people using GNU/Linux on the desktop is generally not possible with competing packages, which is why these packages are ubiquitous. It's not some grand conspiracy to take away your beloved OpenRC; systemd is just better (warts and all) than the alternatives, for the vast majority of users.
Obviously Lennart has personal issues with some people in some places, like any human being, but that has nothing to do with the software.
Richard Stallman may not have the best Spanish elocution, and GNU has flaws; does this tell you enough to know to choose a different libc, or a different core utilities package?
“Life does not ask what we want. It presents us with options”
— Thomas Sowell
At the end of the day, I just run Void (or MX Linux if I want something more Debian-flavored) and get on with my life.
reply