“Systemd is a nice operating system, too bad it lacks a decent init system.”
@hund honest question from someone who only picked up Linux again four months ago after using it up until circa 2005, why is everyone making such a big deal about systemd?
I can't detect any sort of issues related to systemd on my distro, and it feels kind of simple to use really.
@kungtotte The quote sums it up pretty good. It's basically its own OS, which goes against the whole idea of Linux distributions being modular where you are in control. And something that triggers me really bad is binary logs.. What where they thinking?
@hund yeah, binary logs is dumb any way you cut it. I can't think of a single redeeming fact for that "feature".
It seems like it's not that difficult to switch away from systemd though? Considering that there's several systemd-less versions of most distros.
I looked briefly at Void Linux and their runit system seems really neat.
@kungtotte There's options, but almost all major ones has adopted Systemd, which sucks. :(
@hund yeah, for some things standardisation is great but not when it's around a bad idea!
So far I haven't been bit by systemd in any way, so I'll stick to my current distro. But I saved some space on my drive so I can try out other distros :) I'm somewhat spoiled with the package availability in Arch/AUR though...
@hund yeah, it does seem like you're giving up a lot if you want to avoid systemd. The only major distros that ship without it are Gentoo and Slackware, unless you want to get into derivatives like Devuan and ArchBang.
Other than that it's all smaller distros or forks that aren't as well supported/maintained as their parent distros.
@hund @kungtotte Actually... it is modular and contains of multiple (60+) binaries. I don't remember exactly but I think 3 or if it was 5 are mandatory... every thing else is optionally. BSD forked a part of it for instance. There is a minimal build for those inclined to use that. It has support for non-binary logs.
systemd is not just an init... It updates old tools to be more modern. Anyone could fork any of the 60+ binaries and make their own version.
@kungtotte @hund It unifies and simplifies the tools used. They all talk "the same language" in a way. It give you stuff like cgroups e.t.c.. and can thus contain daemons that fork. Something I think Runit can't. There was also something else it couldn't but don't remember now.
Runit is in other ways also a proof that a modernization was needed.
So Runit may be enough on your personal machine but not on bigger server infrastructure.
@hund that quote sounds oddly familiar...
@hund actually, I'd say the opposite.
"Systemd is a shitty operating system with a decent init system"
IMO systemd would be fine if it was only an init. And from my experience, it's doing a pretty good job at being an init.
OTOH, all the other components, like networkd, resolved, timesyncd, udevd, logind, journald, etc. should be separate things, and if there's a need for them to interact with init, then there should be a stable interface, preferably as generic as possible.
Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..