Comment by ethin
13 hours ago
> ... 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.
You... Do know that this is just a downright weird take, right? Systemd is software. Software has bugs.
My sentence continues:
> ..., 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
The sentence is not about systemd having bugs, its about how the devs handle bug reports.
In the /run/lock situation that i linked, Boccassi unilaterally declared WONTFIX towards the users whose applications he broke. If i did this at work, I'd get fired.
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.
How does what I said suggest that one isn't allowed to dislike it? You are free to dislike it all you want. That doesn't mean that it somehow doesn't solve a ton of problems that prior art either didn't solve at all or was outright painful to actually set up because everything you had to use did things differently and there were 6 different ways of doing something.
> 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?
Yes? Systemd is not an init system. To compare it to init systems is to make an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Systemd's "scope creep" is a stereotypical haters argument and is nonsensical. The 'Unix Philosophy' was a hardware requirement more than a philosophical one because back then they literally couldn't fit more than one program into memory at a time. And, regardless of the hardware or philosophical debate, systemd does actually meat this requirement: systemd itself is just the init part and service manager. systemd-logind is a completely separate service which you can opt not to build and systemd will work just fine. systemd-resolved, systemd-timesyncd, etc., are likewise completely indepeendent programs which just so happen to share the same codebase and are under the same umbrella. Are you next going to claim that coreutils has scope creep because all of the tools share the same codebase? Or busybox?
He calls it "init system" himself. https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
2 replies →