← Back to context

Comment by eth0up

3 months ago

For me, it's primarily its scope. I had a system for 10 years that changed, but fundamentally worked the same. With systemd, the changes exceeded my threshold and continue to expand into something that to me, seems ugly.

I'm not a typical example. My view is inarticulate, subjective and maybe even irrational, but I remember the system I came to love and that was Linux. My overwhelming impression with systemd is that it's not Linux and it should not be referred to as Linux or even in the context thereof. It's not evil or bad or anything but itself, but it's not Linux. In my abstract, medieval view, Linux has a soul, albeit, at times, a tormented one. Systemd exorcises this soul for me.

Now despite me disclaiming the subjectivity and abstraction of these perceptions, I'm pretty certain there will be some hostile replies, possibly with valid points. If you're really trying to understand the creature, I suspect it's very improbable that it will happen here. There are existing strong, well written arguments both for, against, and even neutral. Definitely worth one's time if understanding is the true objective.

For me, it's scratching a chalkboard and smells bad. It frightens me and makes me sad. It's worse than brussel sprouts and freaks me out.

"My overwhelming impression with systemd is that it's not Linux and it should not be referred to as Linux or even in the context thereof. "

Yes, systemd is an init system/service handler (and a lot of related utilities) running on top of the OS kernel Linux. They are two different things working together to make an usable OS.

  • Thanks for the intel man. I might have not known without your help. And I'm sure you wouldn't insincerely leap on an overly literal interpretation just to leave a silly comment.

    But yeah, you cracked a tough one there. Two separate things. Who'd have thunk it!