Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 0dayz 1 hour ago
To this day I have not found a single modern argument against systemd that is a technical one (I tried systemd but it does not support x which openrc does), instead it's these vague bike shed arguments (Unix philosophy, anti-centralization and "bloat" ).

I can't wrap my head around it, since those 3 are a "you" problem, systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts.
5 comments
robalni 5 minutes ago
Sorry for nitpicking, maybe you didn't think through the choice of word, but what is a "technical" argument and how is it different from other types of arguments?

I think all arguments about a technology like systemd need to have a technical part (what systemd does) and a (sometimes implicit) personal part (what I think about it). If it doesn't have the technical part then I don't think it's an argument about systemd at all.

The difference I can see between your example arguments is that the "technical" one is more precise. "Not supporting x" is pretty specific while "being bloated" is not very precise. But of course it could be more precise if you say something like "systemd is made of x megabytes of code. I only want the code I need which I think can be implemented in 1% of that" or just "systemd includes parts x, y and z which I don't want".

So did you by "technical" just mean "precise" or is there another meaning that I missed?

link
graemep 1 hour ago
> systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts.

What makes systemd different from other init systems is that it is specifically designed to work with the other parts. It aims to provide a standardised OS on top of the Linux kernel. That is the advantage, and the disadvantage, of systemd.

link
xuhu 1 hour ago
If Unix philosophy is what's keeping systemd from requiring a Microsoft account during install, I'm all for it.
link
LtWorf 1 hour ago
I found a few bugs where journald was losing data for example. I reported them and they got fixed in later releases.

Of course I still got called a neckbeard and got told that I didn't like systemd because I'm a dinosaur and so on. So I have a really hard time to take positions such as your seriously to be honest.

link
0dayz 1 hour ago
If you mean that there are times systemd has a critical bug; sure the same way x11, kernel modules or drivers have critical bugs are annoying.

You can always point to where I said you are a neckbeard, so I do not get the "hard time" angle.

You can not like systemd, but the arguments for it is silly, and that is fine it's your machine and I don't care as long as people stop spreading FUD on such awful grounds.

Say in contrast with BTRFS or BcacheFS there are genuine issues with those and there are technical philosophical arguments (I want journaling, I do not want or need CoW features, snapshot? never heard of her).

link
simoncion 1 hour ago
> systemd is just a service manager it's you who decide to use other systemd parts.

cough

> To this day I have not found a single modern argument against systemd that is a technical one...

Good for you. [0] The project is great until, very, very suddenly it is not. May you continue to have many happy and trouble-free decades with it.

But when you do hit a bug whose cause is dreadfully complex [1], or get some useful, documented behavior you depend on altered so that it's unusable for you for no better reason than "it was inconvenient to keep permitting people to do that", you'll understand why some folks strongly dislike the project.

[0] Genuinely!

[1] ...so much so that the maintainers refuse to work on it...

link