Comment by udev4096
13 hours ago
systemd scales. I love small init systems but systemd is just so convenient. It handles daemon process, encryption with cryptsetup, boot process (systemd-boot), hardening options you can define on unit files, good support for nested containerization etc. It's deeply entrenched in every major distro that it's impossible to administer a linux system without it
The article and discussion are about runit, why bring systemd into it? Diversity in solutions is a good thing, there’s no need to feel threatened by that.
I'm okay with it for comparison's sake.
As a long-time runit user, systemd does far better with sequencing things. With runit you have to have a check executable, and then run 'sv check servicename' in the start script of the service which depends on another.
Least sane systemd hater, try using runit or sysvinit on a production system and come back crying when your runit bash scripts fail all the time
You never addressed GP's point...
This is just a thread about runit, what good is bringing tribal console-war like arguments about systemd to it?
I've had systemd fail/freeze in weird ways very few times. I've had non-systemd init scripts fail zero times.
3 replies →
Why does every article on runit have some reactionary runit haters in the comments.
The systemd project and its following can be quite cult-like, towards the more devout-end.
Well - the systems presented here are about the init part, not anything else. Systemd includes more functionality than merely init-stuff, so any comparison here was always biased and unfair. If you compare 5_000 lines of code to 500_000 lines of code, the comparison won't work. Systemd assembled numerous things (weed-collection via systemd-homie, for the home setup and I think you can also accidentally delete your home directory, with the systemd devs claiming this is a feature). None of those "features" listed is what I consider needed or necessary. All daemon-startup I already did via ruby as wrapper over the underlying system. For a campus site with many computers, systemd simplified managing them. I don't really see the same benefit for people who know more about computer systems at home - all the complexity is a trade-off with regard to having to learn, understand and apply what systemd brings to the table.
"It's deeply entrenched in every major distro that it's impossible to administer a linux system without it"
That's a non-sequitur, aka an after-the-fact claim made. Not every distribution transitioned into forcing systemd onto everyone - granted, the majority did, but you can find distributions that did not surrender user's rights here, be it devuan, slackware, void, gentoo (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_without_systemd). But admittedly it takes more effort than going into systemd. Note that many of the statements made there such as "hardening options", is just buzzword promo for systemd. It just means nothing. What should "hardening" even mean? Also, it is perfectly fine to use linux on a non-systemd system. People used to do this for decades before systemd infected the linux world. It's a smaller crowd though compared to systemd-using systems and users indeed nowadays.
> Systemd includes more functionality than merely init-stuff, so any comparison here was always biased and unfair.
The real argument about systemd is whether you want an init system, or what is effectively an additional layer in the OS. It provides more standardisation, vs more diversity. The strongest argument for systemd is that it is not just an init system, which is also the strongest argument against systemd.
> ... granted, the majority did, but you can find distributions that did not surrender user's rights here...
I really don't like the phrasing of this. Nobody's rights are being "infringed" by distros going with systemd. Especially because, as other comments have noted, systemd is (not) just an init system, and more often than not I have found that people who hate on it or try to compare it to any pure init system are usually both arguing in bad faith and fundamentally misunderstanding what systemd actually is.
It is deeply integrated into distros that you cannot run these distros without them, it has bugs that ruin production for you, and if you complain about these bugs to the systemd project, they will consider you a bump in systemd's way of greatness that must be purged.
Most recent breakage: https://lwn.net/Articles/1041316/
I hoped this kind of behavior would stop as soon as Lennart was busy with different things @microsoft (this happened to Pulseaudio and that was a good thing), but Luca continued where Lennart left, and this stuff goes on.
2 replies →
That suggests that we cannot be allowed to dislike it. I'm allowed to not like init systems e.g. I don't like s6 at all. Oddly, I don't like systemd either but it's not heresy or stupidity or whatever else one might ascribe to it.
1 reply →
> Especially because, as other comments have noted, systemd is (not) just an init system, and more often than not I have found that people who hate on it or try to compare it to any pure init system are usually both arguing in bad faith and fundamentally misunderstanding what systemd actually is.
... Yeah, except that system's excessive and ever expanding scope is one of its bigger problems. Are you sure they misunderstood anything?
2 replies →
What a cope. The hardening options highly restrict the unit files from accessing anything more than it's required for it's function. systemd has also made a lot of efforts in progressing the boot security: https://0pointer.net/blog/brave-new-trusted-boot-world.html. Have fun running your "non-infected" systems which is so easy to pwn
To make a comment like this, I imagine that you've set up BIOS security (password, case intrusion detection...), that you check your keyboard wire end-to-end daily, that you use a USB device whitelist, that you regularly check for hidden cameras spying on your keystrokes, etc., otherwise you're equally "easy to pwn" using equally-quick and roughly-as-cheap attacks.
1 reply →
Do you happen to use Arch Linux?
[dead]