1. 6

  2. 3

    I dislike systemd (other people have explained all the reasons better than I can) however I think systemd represents only a minor problem. Because it’s such a big, visible, invasive change towards badness, it’s an easy and obvious target to criticise, but I think the multiple smaller invisible changes happening across all the software ecosystem represent a much worse change in aggregate than systemd in isolation.

    Systemd is a reaction to fundamental changes in computing, not a cause. The cause is deeper and subler.

    The people gospelling we should use $TECHNOLOGY instead of systemd for $REASONS are completely correct, but they also miss the forest from the trees. On the grand scales of things, it doesn’t matter.

    1. 3

      I don’t understand the systemd hate, but I’m one of those weirdos who likes their tar to know how to gzip and prefers to not have to burn their own CPU to build all their software from source, so I guess I’m part of the problem too. I have a suspicion people were similarly outraged when Unixes got shared libraries too.

      1. 3

        Shared libraries didn’t interfere with the running of existing static binaries, though.

        1. 1

          Systemd doesn’t seem to interfere with anything on my system. There’s nothing to stop me running existing scripts and daemons, except for something that wants to be PID 1.

        2. 2

          I mean I do understand resisting change. For the longest time I stuck with nvi - who needs this fancy vim bullshit?

        3. 3

          The systemd os should simply be called Systemd/Linux. Might be beneficial to shed all the SysV legacy and leave us old-timers with our old proven tech.

          1. 3

            It’s called RHEL/Fedora

            1. 3

              Too bad Debin jumped ship. But now that I slept on it, I find myself not caring that hard. Do feel sad for the people who have to, but Debian’s had surprisingly few issues wrt this new stuff…

            2. 1

              Like android in a way.