I see way more posts that are pro-systemd than anti these days, so I think you might be tilting at windmills a bit.
I would love to think about systemd less, but I’ve worked with it professionally since a year or so before Debian switched while I was an intern working in embedded. I got to see the flame wars and shaped my opinion of systemd by wrestling with its growing pains. Writing your own service files and working with DBus was ass back then, and while it has gotten better, my patience with it has diminished. In the end the frustration was enough that after I ditched windows, systemd was the next to go.
That would be the end of it, but other programs keep growing annoying systemd dependencies or their projects get swallowed up by the systemd ecosystem entirely. I was so excited at the start to work with the parallel execution and dependency management, but the number of times systemd broke something, swallowed up the output, and then corrupted its own journal and lost the logs really turned me against it.
I don’t know, I’m not a power-user so systemd is just a thing in the background, I don’t have much opinions over it.
I think you might be tilting at windmills a bit.
No systemd love or hate for me, as for the meme, I respect both opinions (I’m still learning btw) but don’t particularly like proselitjzers. Sharing an opinion and experiences (like you did) is fine and often informative, what I don’t like are people (expecially on lower-quality places like 4chan) spamming stuff like “systemd is the devil and killed my child” or “systemd weights more than the Linux kernel” I guess I need to make up my mind, haven’t interacted with the OS at a low enough level yet.
I understand what you mean. If you are on the fence and not super interested in init systems, you can pretty easily get by with systemd without thinking about it. Most desktop environments have tools to manage user services in easy GUI’s, and you can find guides for anything more advanced you want to accomplish with them usually.
If you want to dive in though, systemd is a great init system to learn. Nowadays learning systemd is a lot less of a moving target, and it’s in use virtually everywhere so the knowledge is valuable. It’s also fairly well documented at this point, which is great for learning how it works.
My personal advice if you want to go that path is to just open up some service files. There are lots of interesting examples in /lib/systemd/system Systemd service files are just plain text, and pretty straightforward to read. Its divided into nice sections, and naming is pretty straightforward (Or the systemd brainworms are really in deep). Look for names you recognize or programs you use. Especially ones you are familiar with on the command line. I don’t recommend changing them to start, especially in the system directory, just open a couple and you should quickly start seeing the connections between what they are trying to accomplish and whats in each file. Then if you see anything you don’t understand or peaks your curiousity check the documentation. Once you’re ready try writing one of your own for something in the usr service directory. No pressure though, its not necessarily essential knowledge
At the level I care about, which is “I want this daemon to start when I boot up the computer”, systemd is much better. I can write a ~5 line unit file that will do exactly that, and I’ll be done.
With init, I needed to copy-paste a 50-line shell script that I don’t really understand except that a lot of it seemed to be concerned with pid files. Honestly, I fail to see how that’s better…
The only arguments against I have seen so for is systemd does a lot more than just handing system startup (systemd-resolved is one such example) and files that was previously stored as text now require systemd’s own tool to read (journalctl?).
So not the actual startup function, just everything else.
Based on the video someone posted, it’s not very portable either.
I feel that little part of my brain that wants to add yet another standard itching. Easily starting something at boot is good, but I don’t see why that has to come with loss of modularity.
Mmm I have a general dislike of systemd because it doesn’t adhere to the “do one thing and do it well” approach of traditional Unix systems.
It’s a big old opaque blob of software components that work nicely together but don’t play well with others, basically.
Edit: but it solved a particular set of problems in serverspace and it’s bled over to the consumer Linux side of things and generally I’m ok with it if it simplifies things for people. I just don’t want a monoculture to spring up and take root across all of Linux as monocultures aren’t great for innovation or security.
I just use whatever that does the job. Sometimes I switch to systemd free distros just to know what it’s like (currently checking out dinit version of Artix)
I think most of the discrimination arises from a way of thinking which puts minimalism, simplicity and speed as the first priority and starts a unhealthy obsession over it. Sometimes keeping things too minimal can require more work than doing the actual work. This can also be seen in people who rave about WMs vs DEs and Wayland vs X.
Oh and I use XFCE btw. I feel like that’s the DE which gives me enough control over everything while not bombarding me with a truck ton of settings. I started using DEs again because I was spending all my time ricing away with window managers (and none of my rices were not even that good).
I sure love journalctl -u taking five second to give me ten lines of logs. Which I have to use because older, more robust services got replaced by default and the replacements got tightly integrated into everything else making it a pain to switch back, AND these replacement exhibits all the flaws that were fixed in older solutions.
Granted, this will only improve going forward, but why reinvent everything just to put systemd- in front of the name.
That’s actually a fair point, though I still think systemd does it in a way that’s both too obfuscated and too proprietary, which preferences tying everything to itself rather than being able to work alongside and integrate smoothly with other tools that already exist.
It feels a bit like change for change sake at times… I know there are underlying reasons, but it breaks too many of the core philosophies of *NIX for my taste
I just use systemctl because I know how to use it and know all the ins and outs of any bullshit I might encounter. No way I’m switching. I like not being stumped on issues I can’t fix for weeks.
systemd isn’t perfect, but it’s definitely a net plus for me when compared with older init system. In case anyone’s interested, this talk summarizes the key points pretty well: www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo
I’m from the era of untangling hacky init scripts from every flavour of Linux to get something to work or add something new. Systemd was like coming up for air.
This was an excellent listen, thank you for the link. I had no idea what was involved in it when I started, nor the roles of initd and launchd before it and what systemd was trying to replace.
The funny thing is that the guy giving the talk, Benno Rice, is primarily FreeBSD/openRC and not Linux, so he seemed fairly agnostic in presenting the various sides, not just from Unix and then Linux but also from the Apple viewpoint, who have also been playing a kind of parallel but separate role in this.
Very cool. Not a beginner level talk, definitely, but there was nothing I couldn’t figure out coming from Windows/Mac tech. Really informative, thank you again.
i don’t like systemd because it has a lot of stuff that i don’t think should be built-in, for example, why have systemd timer when cron already exists?
runit is nice for me because it’s simple and i like activating services by just soft-linking files to /var/service instead of using some fancy tool
Add comment