Hey, /g/. I'm fairly new to gnu/linux and systemd is all I've known. Why does everyone hate it?
Because ludism.
Because a guy implemented a fairly useful software, but the first versions did have lot of bugs, so everyone hated him and still hate him for that.
>>54702552
Because it's the Loonix equivalent of svchost.exe
>>54702600
check'd
so its decent enough now?
>>54702610
>equivalent of svchost.exe
Any one who says that doesnt know how the fuck does systemd or svchost.exe work.
>>54702750
But its true you retard
>>54702755
Not, it doesnt. They're completely different.
>>54702750
It's the same in the sense that it tries to do everything.
>>54702764
No they are not, you don't know anything
>>54702552
because systemd devs constantly make questionable decisions and default behaviours (binary logs by default being the major one, the latest update terminating every process on logout including screen sessions as another more recent one) and the attitude taken towards bug defaults or behaviours is almost literally "works on my machine" or "intended behaviour, will remain"
take the msi efi bricking thing, sure, shitty hardware implementations are awful and workarounds aren't great but if the hardware implementation results in literal bricks then the system should take steps to prevent that, the primary response to not mounting the efi vars with rw by default (ONLY necessary when updating grub lists or for rebooting straight to bios (something windows does, completely unnecessary for most people)) is that doing so is babyproofing the system
otherwise as an init system it'd be fine if they STOP FUCKING INCLUDING SO MUCH SHIT WITH IT
I swear, systemd is trying to take the spot emacs currently has of being simple programs eventually incorporating enough shit to be considered full operating systems
>>54702792
At least svchosts.exe works like more a plugin container than a big beast who runs all.
>>54702552
>obvious bugs don't get fixed because LOL WORKS ON MY MACHINE
>CLOSED WONTFIX
>tries to be everything which goes completely against the Unix philosophy
>questionable design choices. Does an init system really need to contain a webserver to generate QR codes for God knows why?
>it breaks a ton of stuff, for example desktop environments. Should a DE really be forced to support a specific init system?
>>54702854
You can hate systemd, but you cant blame it for hardware problems that where exposed at kernel level.
Even crux and slackware where affected if they mounted efivars.
>mfw there'd people who still believes that “Unix philosophy” is an argument of technical merit
>>54702552
Systemd has some minor problems, but it "works well". That is not the issue here.
You would need more knowledge to understand that entire topic, but I will try to break it down for you:
The devellopers of systemd broke with the unix philosophy of each component "doing one thing well". Instead they created a tool that grew and grew and grew..
Imagine some guys working together happily for some years. Than one day managements says: "We need more performance. This you new chief, he will command from now on, so you you asshats get more productive." Of course the devellopers would feel pissed.
It's not only about personal resentiments though, as I said before the linux philospohy is very specific about that topic. A very important text called "the bazar and the cathedral" (you should read it sometimes) stated that linux is like a bazaar: everybody can put his part in it (as in a cathedral you have ONE high priest telling the folks what to do).
Now in fact systemd turns Linux into that cathedral, or to be more precise: the entrance to the bazar is now through a small cathedral. Many developers feel like this like is spitting in their face, especially since their is no real need for this whole systemd, cuz there was an init tool everybody seemed to get along with just fine.
It's also about the developpers, they are pretty.. let's say "self-assured" (you could also say they didn't give a flying fuck about many other people).
Last but not least, even if forget about "politics" and "philosophy" of linux, the power of systemd as "one tool to rule them all" qualifies it as high value target for attacks. Systemd is of course open source, but it's huge and who's gonna review all that code? Even if we don't assume evil intentions there might be some potential exploit we don't know about yet.
Last but not least, systemd has ingrained itself so deep into the startup process it will be difficult to create an alternative in the future. It makes people dependent.
>>54702610
I don't see people bashing svchost.exe on windows.
>Also that analogy
I can read Wikipedia too you fucking try hard cunt.
>>54702750
This is in fact true.
>>54702854
>>54703042
Thanks for the actual answers, guys. Interesting stuff.
>>54702940
>Should a DE really be forced to support a specific init system?
I have boarded this hate train. Thank you anon.
