1440

submitted 11 months ago by Maven@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think it's largely a combination of curmudgeons that hate change and people who are strict Unix ideologues. systemd, while being objectively better in many ways is a monolith that does more than one thing. This violates some of the Unix program philosophies (small programs that do one thing). The truth is that the script-based inits were terrible for dependency management, which is something that systemd explicitly addresses and is probably one of its greatest strengths, IMO.

EDIT: Corrected capitalization.

[-] msage@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago

It's the main strength, and for that it deserves praise.

For the feature creep that goes into it, and everything hard requiring systemd stuff (way beyond just the init system) just to start, no thanks.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

That's very fair. Having managed system services for custom application stacks with hard dependencies on one another, that strength is worth it to me.

I don't mean to come across as saying that the Unix philosophy is wrong. Just horses for courses. Systems where there is a likelihood of interdependent daemons should probably consider systemd. Where that's not an issue or complexity is low, more Unix-like inits can still be a solid choice because of their limited scoping and easy modification.