This whole anti-systemd thing is so pathetic.
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.
"This whole anti-Microsoft thing is so pathetic. Just use Windows."
Jesus Christ that author is insufferable.
He sounds like a bitter, stagnant, arrogant old man.
I'm a bitter, stagnant, arrogant old man. That this guy also can't write for shit is coincidental.
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.
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)
This looks like a replacement for chroot itself. It would be better if i can spawn a systemd process inside chroot that take care of services. And i can't understand why it wants to stick into PID 1 of host even when running in chroot.
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 don't like so no one else is allowed to like seems to be rampant.
I couldn't understand exactly what the problem is.. and the writing style is infuriating. State your problem, then explain what you want!
We should think about starting a GoFundMe to get the author the mental health support they so clearly need
This post reads like a sysadmin tried to update to the latest Ubuntu LTS at work and systemd caused a C&A team to go aggro because they've never heard of it, and now said sysadmin has to maintain a couple of hundred 12.04 LTS installs by hand, backporting packages from 22.04.2 LTS just so the cutting edge software the userbase requires to do their jobs will run.
Wow, whoever wrote this doesn't have a clue about systemd, Firefox, Librewolf or whatever. I stopped reading after a while. Couldn't stand it.
But the end is the "best" part, the one where using systemd causes the literal(!) apocalypse.
This article reads like the writer has untreated mental health issues. Like actually unhinged.
The writer reminds me of Terry Davis, except not as bright.
The author of this article:
Betteridge's Law of Headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'." A check of the ebuild indicates that Firefox on Gentoo doesn't depend on systemd, elogind, udev, or even dbus. It isn't Firefox's fault if a given distro can't configure it and its dependencies properly (well, okay, it sorta is, because its configuration setup is complex and ugly, but . . .)
For $DEITY's sake, if you're going to be anti-systemd, do it for real reasons.
I may agree with him/her, I may not. But that's unreadable.
millennials
Do I really have to read past this word?
No. I tried. It's barely coherent.
People like that make me like systemd. Honestly, I see no issues and rarely have a problem with systemd. Shitposting about it is all well and good, but being an anti-systemd evangelist is tiring and weird. All these old heads can still just grab the kernel and build their own OS around it with whatever init they want.
They also seem to congregate on FreeBSD… it’s my preferred os but eventually it’s going to bite them seeing how most new server apps (including lemmy) seem to rely on it!
Having said that they have Firefox 115 running fine without any system level wrappers so not sure why he’d be having issues on a non-systemd os if the FreeBSD Firefox maintainer can figure it out.
Not going to lie, I could not finish that article.
Hard to read. At first I thought it was satire.
The last several lines are so insanely unhinged, completely untethered from reality lol.
Also, when this guy learns about X11 vs Wayland he's doing to die of an aneurysm.
Well....
I just installed Pop_OS which uses systemd-boot to boot instead of grub. I gotta say...its one of the areas I really like systemd over the legacy grub bootloader.
Most systems still have legacy backports too of things like init. So you can still use old commands to do basics like restart services etc.
systemd-boot is so much easier to work with than grub.
Definately agree. For a very long time I have been one of those "what problems is systemd solving over init/upstart"
This is 1000% one of them. In my setup my EFI paritions are totally separate. So theres no risk as well as Pop_OS bungling my windows boot loader and vice versa. I was very happy with this change.
Somebody should just switch to BSD. Or at least decaf.
Im fairly confident that most Linux installs don't have a Firefox install.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0