[Accacin]

> How is that insulting? It's pretty much true. It's not really nice, but it's not really mean either.

That's the point. It's not insulting and it makes you sound like you're twelve.

> Next time you complain about, say, your car breaking down, I'll be sure to advise you to go build your own car.

No, again. I see you're struggling. When my car breaks down, I ring a mechanic or take it to the garage. I don't go to the mechanic claiming to know exactly why my car broke down and how the manufacturer should change the specification to make it so that it doesn't break again. If my car keeps breaking down, I know not to use that model of car and try something else.

What you're doing is most likely using a piece of software, finding it doesn't suit your particular use case and then going online to insult the creator, and claim that you know how it should have been engineered.

It's completely fine that you don't like systemd. The problem is that a majority of people prefer it and that's pretty obvious from the distributions picking it up.

Stop and think for a while, imagine that's you who's created the software. Do you really think he's an evil genius trying to fuck up your system or is he just a hacker doing what he loves to do?

You also say "They also didn't do a great job of modularity, and don't use dbus like they should (dbus isn't built to be used with an init system; use a socket already). Rather, they have every thing depending on another. Suddenly, everything must re-tool to work with systemd or stop working. It basically unilaterally declared itself the standard.", but don't really have anything to back it up.

For example, Arch Linux reasons for picking up systemd:

    0) it is hotplug capable
    1) we can know the state of the system
    2) it is modular
    3) it allows dbus/udev to go back to doing the task they are meant to do
    4) we can reduce the number of explicit ordering dependencies between daemons
    5) we get a lot of security/sandboxing features for free
    6) systemd service files can be written and distributed upstream
    7) systemd is a cross-distro project
    8) logind will finally deliver on what consolekit was supposed to do
    9) systemd is fast

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530

Not sure why it declared itself as standard.

[a1369209993]

> I know not to use that model of car and try something else.

We weren't using that model of car. Until the mechanic, during routine maintenence[0], attemped to steal our cars and replace them with Pintos.

0: Outside the metaphore: during 'apt-get upgrade' et al.

[big_chungus]

Aaaand retreat to the bailey. Systemd - the init - is not that bad. I think it does some things well. Most of what you listed is part of all the other junk I described. The "systemctl chunk" - the init itself - is not the problem.

> That's the point. It's not insulting and it makes you sound like you're twelve.

> What you're doing is most likely using a piece of software, finding it doesn't suit your particular use case and then going online to insult the creator, and claim that you know how it should have been engineered.

It's not insulting, but I'm "insulting the creator"? What exactly are you contending?

> It's completely fine that you don't like systemd. The problem is that a majority of people prefer it and that's pretty obvious from the distributions picking it up.

No, "most people" don't necessarily like it. There are things it does better, and things it does worse. How is a piece of software to improve if every one comes out of the woodwork to white-knight for it when some one criticizes it?

> [you] don't really have anything to back it up.

Dbus stands for desktop bus [0]. It's stated purposes are communicating between desktop applications and between the desktop and OS [1]. It is not built to do low-level init stuff during bootstrapping or within the init itself, hence the name Desktop bus.

I stated that systemd has ~70 binaries; I was off by one. It's 69 binaries [2]. Though, that's a 2013 source; it's taken over other things since then, so I'm sure it's more.

With respect to incompatibility: you now have to use journald. You can forward, but that's additional hassle and more potential breakage. See [3] for more.

Over all, I'd appreciate systemd if I could do one thing: remove everything but the actual init stuff. As far as I'm concerned, there are better options for most of the other stuff.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Bus

[1]: https://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-tutorial.html#whatis

[2]: http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

[3]: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatib...

[Accacin]

> It's not insulting, but I'm "insulting the creator"? What exactly are you contending?

If you tried to insult me, but I didn't find it insulting, you would still have gone online to insult me even though I didn't find it insulting.

> No, "most people" don't necessarily like it.

False, you're not 'most people'. Every main distribution has picked it up. You're living in a bubble perhaps.

> woodwork to white-knight for it when some one criticizes it?

Oh god, now the white-knight defense? Come on, your argument starts okay and then you say absolute rubbish like this. I fail to see how calling some programmer a moron is going to help improve systemd.

> It is not built to do low-level init stuff during bootstrapping or within the init itself, hence the name Desktop bus.

It started that way, but that's no longer true. Some could argue that systemd allows dbus to go back to what it does best. Before dbus was being use to start long running daemons, etc.

> With respect to incompatibility: you now have to use journald.

Very valid reasons for this, this video[0] conviced me but perhaps you won't be swayed.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1lUeQVYuNs

Anyway, thanks for not getting personal in the comments. All the best.