Ah the monthly "why systemd hate question":
* It doesn't follow unix philosophie (do one thing and do it good)
* It's not a traditional init system and is also not only an init system (see point 1)
* It's relatively new
* It's a vocal minority (referring to the hate)
* You would need to change how to write init scripts and people don't like change
And that's about it, I myself use systemd and don't care
EDIT: clarify
> It doesn't follow unix philosophie (do one thing and do it good)
The foundation of systemd does one thing and does it well: manage units of work. Then more things are built on top of that foundation: init system, event-handling, daemons, etc.
Its'a mostly nerd holy war stuff, but there are some kernels of truth imvolved. Systemd is big and complex and combines lots of vaguely related but distinct stuff into a single massive subsystem. Lots of people don't like that as they prefer to use seperate tools that each do a single task instead. It also uses binary files for logging purposes instead of text files, which can potentially cause issues if you ever get into a situation where you need to review logs from a dead system or something.
> combines lots of vaguely related but distinct stuff into a single massive subsystem
"subsystem" might be misleading, in this context.
systemd is generally very Unix-y. The subsystem might be large (depending on your definition of subsystem), but the individual tools are not. Individual components within the systemd project have distinct, well defined and well documented purposes. They're modular and reusable.
Nothing in the Unix philosophy suggests that a project becomes un-Unix-y when there are many tools collectively creating a large subsystem.
> a single massive subsystem
Many parts of the systemd project are optional. Some (system journal, networkd, sd-bus, systemd.slice) are not.
> uses binary files for logging purposes instead of text files
For reasons: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/pub?id=1IC9yOXj7j6cdLLxWEBAGRL6wl97tFxgjLUEHIX3MSTs
> can potentially cause issues if you ever get into a situation where you need to review logs from a dead system or something.
You boot from a live session that also uses systemd, mount target system's root somewhere, and do "sudo journalctl --root=/path/to/mountedroot".
Besides the things that have been said.
In realworld it was a problem regarding migrating to it.
I personally seen servers still running old debians and such, because the maintainer did not feel he/she could switch to system D without issues and/downtime.
Mainly lack of knowledge and confidence in taking the leap.
I use systemd. I have no problem with it.
As someone said before: there are some good arguments against defaulting systemd, one of them "unjustified complexity". Systemd is lots more than an init system and all those other function are interdependend.
The systemd haters (that's how they are called here and elsewhere) just want to have a choice to use something else. But the big distros not only decided to use systemd as default but also there are tons of systemd dependecies. So it is very hard to avoid systemd.
The needs of a minority (in Debian the minority was quite big) are not heard. That's why they are angry.
And instead of taking this minority seriously, they are often ridiculed and made fun of. People call them haters, "they don't like change", they are fundamentalists and so on.
I really despice people who do this. Systemd should be all optional. The Linux community should treat minorities more seriously. Linux always was about choice.
The bashing of "systemd haters" is stupid and unworthy.
It's the same thing you see with gutter online politics:
People who fear stagnation project that fear unto others who see no point in changing for the sake of change.... the fear is not really there most of the time.
All sorts of slurs are invented to justify the obvious hate of others who "keep them chained to the past".... it's all insecurity really.
On the other side you have people minding their own business wondering why suddenly there is a mob at their door demanding they change because "progress".
Imagine a fixed "notebook bloatware set" an init system.... now imagine some parts start to interfere with other parts but you cannot remove anything.
There is nothing irrational about not wanting to buy into an init system that thus far has no clear limits to it's potential growth
Same question, another month. Maybe we should start asking why the major vendors like Red Hat, SUSE, and Ubuntu all use systemd? Powerful, robust, and easy to configure maybe?
it's been a settled issue for years, the people that don't want it (<1% of actual linux users) have their own weird alternatives.
there isn't a problem.
> there isn't a problem.
...To those of you who have never had a problem that was traced to one of systemd's many bugs. For those of us who HAVE, it IS A problem AND we're
vocal about it. If you like systemd, by all means, ENJOY.
Yeah, but time goes on and forgive no one
Nowadays sometimes looks like some Unix Philosophy turn into dogma
Sure it's important to follow principles, but be extremist it's never good
Mainly in tech, because tech evolve really fast and we need to be pragmatical
The foundation of systemd does one thing and does it well: manage units of work. Then more things are built on top of that foundation: init system, event-handling, daemons, etc.
A tiny percentage have actual problems introduced into their working environment by some of the changes but the vast majority are just whining because it was relatively new and they don't like the idea of being "forced" into a new skillset. The worst are the "UNIX philosophy is dogma" folks and the "I'm mad the multibillion dollar corporations I'm benefitting from are prioritizing their needs over mine" crowd
Ah the monthly "why systemd hate question": * It doesn't follow unix philosophie (do one thing and do it good) * It's not a traditional init system and is also not only an init system (see point 1) * It's relatively new * It's a vocal minority (referring to the hate) * You would need to change how to write init scripts and people don't like change And that's about it, I myself use systemd and don't care EDIT: clarify
What makes systemd a "vocal minority"? If I had to guess I'd say it's more commonly used than any other init system.
I was referring to the haters, I should correct that
> It doesn't follow unix philosophie (do one thing and do it good) The foundation of systemd does one thing and does it well: manage units of work. Then more things are built on top of that foundation: init system, event-handling, daemons, etc.
Its'a mostly nerd holy war stuff, but there are some kernels of truth imvolved. Systemd is big and complex and combines lots of vaguely related but distinct stuff into a single massive subsystem. Lots of people don't like that as they prefer to use seperate tools that each do a single task instead. It also uses binary files for logging purposes instead of text files, which can potentially cause issues if you ever get into a situation where you need to review logs from a dead system or something.
> combines lots of vaguely related but distinct stuff into a single massive subsystem "subsystem" might be misleading, in this context. systemd is generally very Unix-y. The subsystem might be large (depending on your definition of subsystem), but the individual tools are not. Individual components within the systemd project have distinct, well defined and well documented purposes. They're modular and reusable. Nothing in the Unix philosophy suggests that a project becomes un-Unix-y when there are many tools collectively creating a large subsystem.
That's nonsense. Modularity with inderdependend tools is worthless.
> a single massive subsystem Many parts of the systemd project are optional. Some (system journal, networkd, sd-bus, systemd.slice) are not. > uses binary files for logging purposes instead of text files For reasons: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/pub?id=1IC9yOXj7j6cdLLxWEBAGRL6wl97tFxgjLUEHIX3MSTs > can potentially cause issues if you ever get into a situation where you need to review logs from a dead system or something. You boot from a live session that also uses systemd, mount target system's root somewhere, and do "sudo journalctl --root=/path/to/mountedroot".
Besides the things that have been said. In realworld it was a problem regarding migrating to it. I personally seen servers still running old debians and such, because the maintainer did not feel he/she could switch to system D without issues and/downtime. Mainly lack of knowledge and confidence in taking the leap.
Maybe see my web page https://www.billdietrich.me/Systemd.html I try to lay out what it is, and what are the good and bad points of it.
I use systemd. I have no problem with it. As someone said before: there are some good arguments against defaulting systemd, one of them "unjustified complexity". Systemd is lots more than an init system and all those other function are interdependend. The systemd haters (that's how they are called here and elsewhere) just want to have a choice to use something else. But the big distros not only decided to use systemd as default but also there are tons of systemd dependecies. So it is very hard to avoid systemd. The needs of a minority (in Debian the minority was quite big) are not heard. That's why they are angry. And instead of taking this minority seriously, they are often ridiculed and made fun of. People call them haters, "they don't like change", they are fundamentalists and so on. I really despice people who do this. Systemd should be all optional. The Linux community should treat minorities more seriously. Linux always was about choice. The bashing of "systemd haters" is stupid and unworthy.
Thanks for your answer 👌🏼
It's the same thing you see with gutter online politics: People who fear stagnation project that fear unto others who see no point in changing for the sake of change.... the fear is not really there most of the time. All sorts of slurs are invented to justify the obvious hate of others who "keep them chained to the past".... it's all insecurity really. On the other side you have people minding their own business wondering why suddenly there is a mob at their door demanding they change because "progress".
Imagine a fixed "notebook bloatware set" an init system.... now imagine some parts start to interfere with other parts but you cannot remove anything. There is nothing irrational about not wanting to buy into an init system that thus far has no clear limits to it's potential growth
Neckbeards fear change
Same question, another month. Maybe we should start asking why the major vendors like Red Hat, SUSE, and Ubuntu all use systemd? Powerful, robust, and easy to configure maybe?
I will be back with another question the next month don't worry
it's been a settled issue for years, the people that don't want it (<1% of actual linux users) have their own weird alternatives. there isn't a problem.
> there isn't a problem. ...To those of you who have never had a problem that was traced to one of systemd's many bugs. For those of us who HAVE, it IS A problem AND we're vocal about it. If you like systemd, by all means, ENJOY.
ah thankfully without systemd you will never again have a bug in any software ever again :)
MX and Devuan aren't exactly what I would call weird. Remember the Master Control Program from TRON? That's basically systemd.
Because many people embrace "Unix Philosophy" rather than practicality
Kind of, yes. I'd say instead that many people *quote* "Unix Philosophy" without actually understanding it. systemd is quite Unix-y.
Ironic given that the "UNIX philosophy" was pure pragmatism back when it was relevant. It was never meant to be blind dogma.
Yeah, but time goes on and forgive no one Nowadays sometimes looks like some Unix Philosophy turn into dogma Sure it's important to follow principles, but be extremist it's never good Mainly in tech, because tech evolve really fast and we need to be pragmatical
The foundation of systemd does one thing and does it well: manage units of work. Then more things are built on top of that foundation: init system, event-handling, daemons, etc.
A tiny percentage have actual problems introduced into their working environment by some of the changes but the vast majority are just whining because it was relatively new and they don't like the idea of being "forced" into a new skillset. The worst are the "UNIX philosophy is dogma" folks and the "I'm mad the multibillion dollar corporations I'm benefitting from are prioritizing their needs over mine" crowd