systemd cat and GNU cat hugging a Linux cat.
Alpine. No GNU and systemD.
Scans room
Windows 11.
Init is just that bad. /s
Chaotic neutral
The tasteful thickness of it
“systemd is the worst implementation of init, except all those other inits that have been tried from time to time” -Churchill, if he had been a nerd
Windows 11, but only for personal reasons. Mainly because it is the only OS that has proper HDR support. The moment Linux catches up (that includes either Nvidia or a 3rd party implementing RTX HDR support as well), I will stop dial dual-booting and go all in on Arch.
Since you asked for OS and not Linux: OpenBSD and FreeBSD are beautiful systems w/o systemd. I would switch in a heartbeat if I wouldn’t need Linux for work reasons.
This feels like an “I would switch to Linux if I didn’t need Windows for work” comment from another universe.
Fediverse has its own baseline.
Fair point. :-)
At the end of the day, the OS has to run the software/applications one needs to get shit done… if it is macOS or Windows, that’s okay.
In my defense, I ran NetBSD for several years a long time back, and it was one of the best OS experiences I ever had. I am just old/pragmatic/flexible enough, to choose setups with less friction, if possible. ;-)
Still, I think it is a shame that Linux mostly took over the UNIX world and the BDS are left for hardcore nerds/embedding/game consoles and Solaris and co are not viable options anymore. Portable software and its stability benefited a lot from bugs detected on other platforms (OpenBSD was always a forerunner here).
BSD is to Linux users what Linux is to Windows users.
Not sure what you want to express. I actually used BSD a long time back, and the quality/documentation/coherence/beauty of the system are/were just on another level… Running Debian for nearly a decade now, because of compatibility (with hardware and software I need)… Linux improved a lot in the last nearly 3 decades and I am happy it exists, still I would be more happy if the BSDs would have stayed at least on an equal footing.
I think the comment speaks for itself. There wasn’t anything deep behind it. It literally just mean “Linux users look at BSD users how Windows users look at Linux.” Bewildered, mystified maybe? It’s just lower on the “food chain”, and they are surprised to see people using it because it’s missing “X” feature they can’t live without, for many people that being gaming. I’m in the same camp.
It was not a comment on the quality of the software, as I have never used it. I would love to tinker with it one day to see the differences, but I can’t see myself ever switching to it, even if I admire/envy some of the better parts compared to Linux.
I feel there’s a similar relation between Mac :: Ubuntu (me) :: Arch.
I try to explain to folks that I have very little interest in anything outside of /home. I truly use Ubuntu because I like the desktop and Steam works and I have all the dev tools I need. But a certain type of otherwise competent Mac-using developer thinks I must be a 1337 h4x0r to even dare to use Linux for actual work.
Any “hate” in regards to you using Ubuntu is more likely to do with controversy involving Canonical than it is you using a beginner-friendly distro. People are more likely to be kinder to the Mint user.
Thanks for clarification!
… and I think you are point on, by now, the ship has sailed. I could use FreeBSD/OpenBSD on servers, but I’d rather run Debian everywhere. On desktops and for day to day usage, the BSDs are no viable options anymore, they simply lack support for common hardware (Wifi etc.) alone and the BSDs will realistically never be able to catch up the chasm anymore.
deleted by creator
Why should I not use systemd?
Contrarianism
Perfectly legitimate reason to do/ not do anything
/s
I disagree.
When you want to feel special but not enough to go to the effort of using FreeBSD
IPv6?
I already am special enough, my mom said so
Nobody wants to be like those “special needs” users.
Offended.
because the over 70 different binaries of systemd are “not modular” because they are designed to work together. What makes a monolith is, apparently, the name of the overarching project, not it being a single binary (which again, it’s not)
If I cared about modularity I’d use something like Hurd, but i actually need to get shit done
What makes it a monolith is that the 70 binaries refuse to do their one job (see: Unix philosophy) independently.
A few months ago, a systemd update broke my boot process because I dared set up my device-mapper nodes manually in a minimal initrd without having a second copy of systemd in there as well. The device is there, yet systemd times out “waiting for device”. How come then a manual mount -a in the rescue shell works then?
If course, the bug had already been reported and swiftly rejected by L. “Hurr durr bother your distributor not me” Pottering.
If you have to ask, then there’s no reason not to. It’s people who tinker with their systems that encounter issues with it, or more often random annoyances that add up over tme to those memes.
When you’re not using your computer
What a wild concept
What’s SystemD and what is it bad?
This:
IDK why it’s bad, though. My only complaint is that it can take a long time to boot depending on your system, but I don’t think a SystemD issue.
ReactOS.
I have no moral or philosophical objections to the design of Windows NT, just the company that makes it and the enshittification. If ReactOS ever becomes stable enough to be daily used I would use it. For now I use LinuxMint and Steam OS at home.
I have a moral objection: backslash () usage in file paths.
As a user, why should I care whether the distro I use uses systemd? I use Mint and I don’t remember having to interact with that kind of low-level nonsense. The distro maintainers can use whatever reasoning they want to pick these details.
Tribalism exists in every circle, perhaps moreso in tech circles. Ironically anyone who hates on a distro could just switch, or build their own distro if they were so inclined, but it’s often the hating that people participate more in than using their system. Use what works for you, and if it no longer works for you use something else.
If you are just a user, in that a computer is just a tool you use, then you’re right, there’s comparatively little reason to be concerened or even know about the underlying details of the system. If you go further and start making changes to your system, or even building more complex systems, over time you will find yourself forming quite firm opinions about various parts of the underlying system, especially if you’ve had experience with other options.
As a user, why should I care whether the distro I use uses systemd?
Um, because as a user you may have to deal with services, or other systemd features?
Let’s say you want to start
ssh-agentwhen you login to your desktop environment. Well, there’s a systemd service for that that you can enable, and on another distro you’d have to do it another way (autostart script or something).
Open or Free BSD.
So the old init.d system was better? Come on people, let’s stop infighting. I have zero preference on init systems. You know why? Because they’re just plumbing. Stop this nonsense. Do I click on an init system? Do I use the init system to check my email? Or play games? No. I know poettering can be controversial, but let’s just move on. Run freebsd if you’re so butt hurt.
Yeah, on a desktop I don’t really mind whatever*. On a server however, I think systemd is great and I wouldn’t want to miss it anymore.
* except Debian’s frankenstein systemd + sysvinit combination. Burn it
So much more than an init system though, which I think is why people don’t like it. Personally, the only annoyance I have is I preferred log files over journald.
Its becoming an behemoth and has security disadvantages in theory
It is much more secure since it supports proper sandboxing and least privilege
Curiously, the cream of the crop in terms of security-focused Linux (i.e. Kicksecure and secureblue) leverage systemd to their benefit.
So the old init.d system was better?
because those are our only two options…
I hate this argument so much, because it’s just a fallacy.
There are (and have been) more solid init systems.
In terms of desktop operating systems, my first choices are usually Chimera Linux or FreeBSD.
What’s wrong with systemd?
All I hear about it is that it doesn’t follow the Unix philosophy of a program should do one thing and do it well. And while it does seem quite large and do a lot of things, out of all the times I have broken my system, systemd has never been to blame.
Edit: deleted duplicate comment.
Wait until people find out about the Linux kernel. It does so many things!
It tries to do everything.
Think of a thing you want to do in Linux and there is a systemd plugin for it. It’s not the unix way
Wait until you learn about the Linux kernel and the plethora of modules and patches
Not everything is a file either. I don’t see many complaints about that
A fellow Plan 9 enjoyer?
Bun spotted
Systemd is broken down into smaller parts. You don’t need to use it for everything.
General principals are great until you take them to an extreme. There’s always cases where you need to do something a bit different
I personally do not like that systemd gets more and more integrated with other software. For example Gnome. That makes it harder to use that software on non systemd linux, or other OS.
deleted by creator
Nothing, but it’s new so people hate it. See also: PulseAudio, Pipewire, Wayland.
It is new if you could something that is 10 years old as new
Linux boomers still use ALSA and Slackware. 10 years old is new to them.
deleted by creator
Care to elaborate?
