This whole anti-systemd thing is so pathetic.
What’s stopping anyone from maintaining the ONE PURE SYSTEM-FREE DISTRO ™?
Nothing. Actions have shown that distro maintainers overwhelmingly prefer systemd because it’s way easier to maintain than sysv init (from what I hear anyways). I’d put money on the author of the blog not being a distro maintainer - just some guy that complains on the internet.
There are plenty of Systemdless forks of distros. People do maintain and it works well. However, the issue is to make the forks its incredibly labor intensive for coders and while not impossible to remove systemd, it’s extremely hard. When base apps require systemd, it locks you down to that one system which is why people hate it so much. It centralizes code and the systems and prevents ease of choice. Does it work? Yes. Though even if it doesn’t affect you or your thoughts, its good to understand why there is a divide. I personally use Artix Linux at the moment with S6 as my init system and it works great. I get why people like Systemd, but I feel it sterilizes our freedom of choice like a frog in a pot of water.
I understand it. I never liked windows moving to the database like registry for configs. But it is what it is type of thing. I might choose a distro because it still uses sysv and I already like freebsd so its a possibility for me to but I also like really easy and convenient distros I can install and go with. Generally im not really mucking about in those systems anyway except at a very high user level.
The thing coming closest to the Windows registry is Gnome’s GConf.
systemd also isn’t a monolithic blob. It would cause some work but you can individually replace the various systemd-related programs with own implementations. They all just communicate with each other, they’re not chained together.
Sorry I did not mean to say it was like the move to registry. More like I did not personally like and similarly am not wild about systemd myself. But ultimately it is with the flavors to decide what they are going to do and folks to use what they are gonna use. Again myself when it comes to install and go, im gonna use whatever works best for me and if thats distro with systemd then it is what it is.
I may agree with him/her, I may not. But that’s unreadable.
Until someone can provide actual, techological disadvantages of systemd over currently available, viable alternatives, this is an irrelevant culture war for me. I feel like some people made hating system-d a core element of their identity and personality.
Even 4chan meme Luke Smith has said he is not sure what is so wrong with system-d to go out of his way to avoid it. Some people across other threads have made some vague comment about vendor lock, but I think people choose it because it solves a problem. Not sure what contract keeps people tied to system-d.
I feel like some people made hating system-d a core element of their identity and personality.
Basically this these days. It started out with people not liking change, not liking the author and miss-understanding what systemd is trying to do. Then latching onto some aspects of it and refusing to let go or change their minds at all.
The tragedy of systemd talk goes over a bunch of the common reasons (and counter points) about why people don’t like systemd as well as the history of init systems.
One thing i can think of is that systemd won’t work in chroots(tell me if i’m wrong, help!). That is, apps requiring systemd cannot be run in chroot environment as it does not “boot up” at all. Systemd, due to it being an init system used to boot up, and being a daemon for other apps, makes it that you can’t run such apps in a non-booted environment.
I would like it so much if it was splitted into two something like “initd+systemd” or “systemd+servicesd” for boot up and running services seperately. So you can choose your init system or not to have an init system for chroot.
At first sight, it looks like it can be used with chroots thanks to systemd-nspawn
(I haven’t tried it though)
Not going to lie, I could not finish that article.
Hard to read. At first I thought it was satire.