Systemd and its components are responsible for too many essential system functions. Init, services, mounts, timers, logging, network config, hostname, DNS resolution, locale, devices, home directories, boot, NTP sync, and I’m sure there are others, can be handled by systemd or one of its components.
Systemd violates the UNIX philosophy of “do one thing and do it well”. Systemd is a complex solution to a complex problem: this thread has several comments by a former Arch Linux maintainer that explains why they’ve switched to systemd, and why the earlier method of using single initscripts was unsustainable.
It is owned and maintained by Red Hat, known for its many controversies.
Some people just don’t like modern things and think that the Linux ecosystem peaked in the 1980s.
Most (though not all) of the popular complaints are completely unreasonable. Those people usually see themselves as moral and righteous and expect the world at large to follow their personal creed. I especially consider the UNIX philosophy to be outdated, and strict adherence to it to be an obstacle for modern apps and systems.
I have some issues with systemd, and I don’t like that one for-profit company has such a massive influence over the entire Linux ecosystem, but I have to acknowledge that it works, it works well enough to counter my personal issues, and that the people whose opinion matters the most (specifically Debian and Arch maintainers) chose it for a good reason.
systemd DOES do one thing really well. Too well. It’s a service manager.
People noticed that it works really well as a framework for their stuff and started plugging all the other stuff in your first bullet point into it. And that also worked really well.
(edit) But, honestly, it’s still kind of accurate. Many of the most significant software suites that define the Linux ecosystem in more recent decades were written in the 80s or earlier. X (the display protocol) was released in 1984, and X11 in 1987. GNU Emacs was released in 1985. Vi, in 1976. UNIX System V, from which sysvinit and compatible init systems were adopted, was released in 1983. It’s not a stretch to say that certain people want to regress to the 1980s state, even if the kernel wasn’t around.
It’s a little known fact that the first answer to Linus’ first message announcing his new OS was “You stupid thing, why did you created it? It ruined it! Linux was better before!”.
I see from your other comment in the thread that you’re enthusiastic about systemd, and that’s great.
I’m glad we inhabit a software ecosystem broad enough that we can both be happy
I’m not enthusiastic about it, I’m just old enough to remeber how bad were good old times before systemd and a bit miffed how old and untrue statements about it are perpetuated.
“You can’t have programs that do multiple things! Any program that is multi-use is ebil. Standardized syntax and functionality between different related systems? NO! PROGRAM DO ONE THING!”
Systemd is controlled by redhat and is a very large part of the Linux stack. It’s become so universal that a lot random stuff won’t work unless the system has systemd.
Compared to X11 to wayland or pulseaudio to pipewire it’s a lot hard to now replace an init system and with that in the hands of redhat which is for profit is not a nice thought.
But you know, fuck it, having systemd is a massive headache for people making distros that’s just gone. Everyone is using the same thing and things just work so people aren’t really complaining. If redhat tries some shenanigans there’ll always be a fork or a systemd compatible init system or even whatever Alpine is using now that’ll take it’s place.
Why are we afraid of systemd again? /gen
I came in late w/ arch-based systems so legitimately don’t know the lore.
Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
Most (though not all) of the popular complaints are completely unreasonable. Those people usually see themselves as moral and righteous and expect the world at large to follow their personal creed. I especially consider the UNIX philosophy to be outdated, and strict adherence to it to be an obstacle for modern apps and systems.
I have some issues with systemd, and I don’t like that one for-profit company has such a massive influence over the entire Linux ecosystem, but I have to acknowledge that it works, it works well enough to counter my personal issues, and that the people whose opinion matters the most (specifically Debian and Arch maintainers) chose it for a good reason.
Now I want a shirt that says “Linux ecosystem peaked in 1980s”
Wasn’t Linux first released in like 1993?
1991 and yes, that why it would be so great. It would trigger so many linux users
TIL I’m older than Linux and honestly it hurts a little bit.
systemd DOES do one thing really well. Too well. It’s a service manager.
People noticed that it works really well as a framework for their stuff and started plugging all the other stuff in your first bullet point into it. And that also worked really well.
Linux was released in 1991.
It’s called a hyperbole.
(edit) But, honestly, it’s still kind of accurate. Many of the most significant software suites that define the Linux ecosystem in more recent decades were written in the 80s or earlier. X (the display protocol) was released in 1984, and X11 in 1987. GNU Emacs was released in 1985. Vi, in 1976. UNIX System V, from which
sysvinitand compatible init systems were adopted, was released in 1983. It’s not a stretch to say that certain people want to regress to the 1980s state, even if the kernel wasn’t around.Funny thing is, nothing in the list adheres to the so called unix philosophy.
It’s a little known fact that the first answer to Linus’ first message announcing his new OS was “You stupid thing, why did you created it? It ruined it! Linux was better before!”.
If they don’t like systemd but are forced to use it for some reason, I can understand why they might have some negative feelings
Once I switched to a distro with OpenRC, I stopped feeling the need to argue about systemd
You are forced to use a lot of things bit systemd is where you draw a line? 😺
I see from your other comment in the thread that you’re enthusiastic about systemd, and that’s great.
I’m glad we inhabit a software ecosystem broad enough that we can both be happy
I’m not enthusiastic about it, I’m just old enough to remeber how bad were good old times before systemd and a bit miffed how old and untrue statements about it are perpetuated.
I was a long-time Linux user at the time of the systemd switchover.
Your memories of the good old times are your own
“You can’t have programs that do multiple things! Any program that is multi-use is ebil. Standardized syntax and functionality between different related systems? NO! PROGRAM DO ONE THING!”
even when said “one program” is actually 69 (nice) different binaries
Wait until these people find out that Linux is monolithic
Systemd is controlled by redhat and is a very large part of the Linux stack. It’s become so universal that a lot random stuff won’t work unless the system has systemd.
Compared to X11 to wayland or pulseaudio to pipewire it’s a lot hard to now replace an init system and with that in the hands of redhat which is for profit is not a nice thought.
But you know, fuck it, having systemd is a massive headache for people making distros that’s just gone. Everyone is using the same thing and things just work so people aren’t really complaining. If redhat tries some shenanigans there’ll always be a fork or a systemd compatible init system or even whatever Alpine is using now that’ll take it’s place.
How exactly is it controlled by Red Hat? Having systemd is a massive blessing for linux distributions that use it and for absolute majority of users.