• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The argument is basically that it does too much and as the motto of Unix was basically “make it do 1 thing and that very well”, systemd goes against that idea.

      You might think it is silly because what is the issue with it doing many things. Arguably, it harms customization and adaptability, as you can’t run only 2/3 of systemd with 1/3 being replaced with that super specific optimisation for your specific use case. Additional, again arguably, it apparently makes it harder to make it secure as it has a bigger attack surface.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sustemd is modular though, you don’t have to use every subsystem. The base init system and service manager is very comprehensive for sure.

              • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                At a high level, microkernels push as much as possible into userspace, and monolithic kernels keep drivers in kernel space

                There are arguments for each e.g. a buggy driver can’t write into the memory space of another driver as easily in a micro kernel, however it’s running in the same security level as userspace code. People will make arguments for both sides of which is more secure

                Monolithic kernels also tended to be more performant at the time, as you didn’t have to context switch between ring 0 and ring 1 in the CPU to perform driver calls - we also regularly share memory directly between drivers

                These days pretty much all kernels have moved to a hybrid kernel, as neither a truly monolithic kernel nor a truly micro kernel works outside of theoretical debates

  • Lightfire228@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I feel like the people who complain about systemd have never tried to mess with sysVinit scripts before

    6+ years ago, I was trying to configure a touchscreen HAT for a raspberry pi, and dicking with the init.rc script was a massive pain

    • Meansalladknifehands@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The alternatives to systemd isn’t init.d or some other legacy init systems. I use runit, pretty easy to understand and use. Stop being lazy dude

  • GreatDong3000@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hi am noob why systemd bad? I use Debian, is fucked?

    Honestly I’ve been hearing about this for a while now but never bothered to check, I’m too lazy for that.

    • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not inherently bad, it “fails” the Unix Philosophy of “Do one thing and do it well” but since Linux’s kernel is:

      • Unix-like, not Unix
      • Fails this philosophy, as it does more than one thing but does all of it pretty well
      • systemd is just a bundle of tools that do one thing and do it well under one package, like Linux’s kernel

      It used to be a mess, but that’s solved. The biggest reason to avoid systemd is mainly user preference, not anything malicious. 90% of current distros use systemd as its easier for the maintainers and package programmers to build for the general than each package and each distro having their own methods of how to do an init system and other tasks.

      How Debian and Arch and Gentoo and Slackware and other big distros worked was different, and the maintainers of those packages had to know “Debian’s way” and not a general way that most places accept. Systemd actually solved the Too Many Standards! issue.

      I’ve never really seen a big argument against systemd, but maybe I’ve just not heard it.

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        back when you had an init system and you got it just the way you wanted it, you would be pissed that you had to move to systemd

        now its there when you install and it is stable so it isn’t a big deal. But old beards hate change.

  • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    anyone ever seen a goldwing? it was supposed to be a motorcycle but for some reason has a fridge, microwave and what not added.

    it is still a motorcycle. you can ride it. it starts right away and has all sorts of extra functions.

    and now look at it. it is an ugly piece of engineering that only the weirdest of people like.

    dont ride a goldwing. dont use systemd.

    • WillBalls@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      What are you talking about? The goldwing has been consistently hailed as one of the best touring motorcycle for almost 40 years. Every long distance rider I’ve spoken to says the goldwing is their favorite bike for cross country rides, and the ones who have sold theirs for a BMW or Harley touring bike have expressed regrets about changing.

      Just because something has a lot of features, doesn’t mean it’s bad.

    • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      No clue about motorcycles but those things look neat and win awards. I want one now. Thanks for turning me on to this neat bike.