Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix (Read 1255 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
 

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #1 –
I like how one of the highlights of this release the run0 command. It's what s6-sudo has been doing for almost 10 years without requiring a custom PID 1, just a tiny bit of setup that the distribution can feasibly do ahead of time in the package.

As for systemd-ssh-generator, it's also been done years ago with ssh INETD mode and UCSPI-VSOCK and socat, also outside of the init system.

Everything systemd-run related is proof that systemd's "exclusive" features could've come in far less heavy-handed packages. More often than not, there is a less heavy-handed package (see util-linux, bwrap, or the standard utilities in runit/s6).

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #2 –
Quote from: capezotte – on
I like how one of the highlights of this release the run0 command.

I hope this helps shake some people awake about how absurd systemd is.  So many have only a surface level understanding, esp "influencers" in the linux youtube community.

>its only an init system and my pc boots fine!

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #3 –
Quote from: htx80nerd – on
>its only an init system and my pc boots fine!

As someone who is pretty much a newbie to Linux in general and have their perspective, widespread "normie", for a lack of a better word, users will never care. Even with "hard" distro's like Arch Linux the Arch wiki and online resources makes actually diving in much easier now. EndeavourOS and now recently bazzite.gg are probably single handedly lifting both "advanced" new users and casual computer gamers into the ecosystem. If their machine boots and people can help them when it doesn't, under the hood will not and never will matter.

I personally chose Artix because I like the freedom of choice for all aspects, including the init system; as well as trying "systemd free" right away so I don't become "tethered" to it as a new user. If I decided I hated it that much, Arch Linux with systemd is always there. I ended up loving how simple OpenRC was, hell having less stuff to worry about it doing honestly floats my boat just fine.

Most people won't make that choice, the comfort of having a stronger base community for your OS after a switch: Arch, Mint, etc., is just too strong. For systemd to truly die these base OSes need to actually put the effort in to actually maintain non-systemd alternatives so new users can actually see what systemdless is like. Unfortunately when everything is a fork of either Debian or Fedora and Debian doesn't seem like it will shift it's view anytime soon and Fedora is literally a corporate distro that puts everything in between a rock and a hard place. Arch could have theoretically provided more options or just have never switched to systemd but they don't and seem content with just having forks take up that responsibility.

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #4 –
Quote from: kirbyball – on
For systemd to truly die these base OSes need to actually put the effort in to actually maintain non-systemd alternatives so new users can actually see what systemdless is like.

I agree with this point but "fork" from it this way;
If systemd keeps having the major issues that has plagued it recently, I think that major distros (I'm looking for Arch to take the initial steps) to at best, include alternative inits. Ideally, drop systemd completely. This would be a nice self-correction.

It takes one major distro to go that way (and with Artix, it's showing Arch that it can be done) and in short timing, others will find it easier to follow.  Yes I know, this is mostly a pipe-dream. But a perfect storm could happen.

I remember years ago when I first saw and tried macos - I was made fun of when I said that it would be nice if they release an x86 version.
I tell ya, talk about ridiculed. But years later....

So... Until then, I hold out a little hope that someday, systemd will not be a thing any longer.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #5 –
Quote
Ideally, drop systemd completely.
Well, even if something like Arch drops systemd completely, that would be a miracle. Imagine all of the work that has been done: re-writing services, documentation, and even then a lot of programs have hard-coded systemd dependencies. Suddenly abandoning all of that would be one hell of a change. Also, RedHat probably blew so much money into systemd that they're not gonna let it go easily.
If people actually start getting fed up, including alternative inits is the most likely route. Especially since Artix exists :P

And though, while typing this, I don't believe that such changes would occur any time soon, you never know. Maybe tomorrow systemd will have a major mess-up and that will be the turning point... But until then, the only thing that we can do is maintain the freedom that we currently have (kudos to all of the devs ;) )

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #6 –
You know, I really don’t care if Systemd doesn’t follow the UNIX philosophy, because the Linux kernel itself doesn’t adhere to it either! The Linux kernel has over 8 million lines of code and handles a wide range of functionalities, which deviates from the traditional UNIX philosophy. Xorg is another example in the Linux world that doesn’t fully follow the UNIX philosophy. It’s an extremely complex system designed to manage graphical displays and input, which adds to its complexity. My problem with Systemd is that it is an enormously large and complex program that can be seen as bloated and has a significant attack surface. Additionally, the poor handling of critical bug reports by the Systemd devs is another major issue that exacerbates the situation.
Most people don't use Linux because they find it difficult to use. I find Linux easy to use but don't daily drive it because my favorite distro doesn't work well on my existing hardware. :-(

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Phosphate5 – on
You know, I really don’t care if Systemd doesn’t follow the UNIX philosophy, because the Linux kernel itself doesn’t adhere to it either!
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not 'Whataboutism'?

If you want to rant about the kernel, feel free in a new thread, I guess?
This thread seems to be about ranting about systemd.

Also, just curious, do you not care about murder because others have murdered? Asking for a friend...

Finally... the kernel is very modular, right? You can remove and add modules, right? It is not monolithic in that it is does not require unrelated parts to be added to function, right?

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #8 –
But he's right, it's our computing needs have changed to divagate a bit from the unix philosophy, gnu philosophy, and posix standard, all three keeping a more laid back place in response to novelties, what's different for instance here from mainstream distros is just that those novelties/changes which are most subversive are being ommitted. There are many examples of negatively interdependent software, it's just that systemd is one of them.
I am sometimes mad at dbus and even at glibc once in a while. And of course also at buggy modern high level node js webviewy software, too bad some of it is pretty. :)
And don't get me wrong, i think the kernel should stay mostly as it is for the very distant future.

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #9 –
Quote from: n00b – on
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not 'Whataboutism'?
Thank you for reflecting your opinions. Regarding your point about "Whataboutism," I understand your concern about the thread's focus.
Quote from: n00b – on
If you want to rant about the kernel, feel free in a new thread, I guess?
This thread seems to be about ranting about systemd.
Don’t get me wrong; I love the Linux kernel. I provided the Linux kernel and Xorg as other examples in the Linux world that don’t fully adhere to the traditional UNIX philosophy. I just wanted to say that hating on Systemd solely because it has ‘42% less UNIX in it’ isn’t a valid approach. I think the following points are the major reasons that people should avoid Systemd:
  • Most distros now only offer Systemd as their init system, which effectively sidelines other init systems in Linux because more developers are hardcoding Systemd in their projects.
  • Systemd is poorly written and has numerous critical bugs and vulnerabilities that lead to things like the xz util backdoor.
  • Bug reports are often ignored by Systemd developers.
  • Systemd’s push by the corporate world is increasing its control over Linux.
Quote from: n00b – on
Finally... the kernel is very modular, right? You can remove and add modules, right? It is not monolithic in that it is does not require unrelated parts to be added to function, right?
You are correct about the Linux kernel being modular. However, I want to remind you that only advanced Linux users compile their own Linux kernel and remove the extra unneeded modules. Most normal people who use Linux don’t compile their own kernel and use the generic kernel shipped by their distro, which has all the extra stuff in it. The complexity and the large attack surface of the generic Linux kernel are why projects like linux-hardened exist.
Most people don't use Linux because they find it difficult to use. I find Linux easy to use but don't daily drive it because my favorite distro doesn't work well on my existing hardware. :-(

Re: systemd 256 now has 42% less unix

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Phosphate5 – on
I just wanted to say that hating on Systemd solely because it has ‘42% less UNIX in it’ isn’t a valid approach.
Approach to what ?
And I see no one "hating on Systemd solely because it has ‘42% less UNIX'".
OP posted a link to a news article about a childish post from one of systemd's most ludicrous devs.

I think the 'Unix philosophy' has always applied more to the user space programs than the kernel.
Has any Unix (or clone) ever had a micro kernel other than Minix ?
If not ,and the original Unix's all had  monolithic kernels, then it's a stretch to say the Linux kernel is deviating from the 'Unix philosophy' by haviing a monolithic kernel just like Unix does.