• Hellfire103@lemmy.caEnglish
    43·
    9 months ago
    • OpenRC just feels nice
    • Runit is simple
    • S6 is really fucking fast
    • Some distros (e.g. Guix, Void, Gentoo) come with non-systemd init systems by default, but I use them for other reasons

    As for why I sometimes use musl, I like BSD. Also, Alpine Linux uses it by default, and most glibc software I’ve tried works just fine with gcompat.

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    354·
    9 months ago

    I had to debug dns issues with a wm. Was disgusted what Systemd all does what it shouldn’t.

    Musl was fine until i had to install the one blob most people hate and love, Steam.

      • AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
        171·
        9 months ago

        systemd-resolved is an independent binary and entirely optional, just developed by the same project.

        That said, it’s good. Supported DoT and DNSSEC early, easy to configure. No complaints for simple usage.

        • oktoberpaard@feddit.nl
          51·
          9 months ago

          And it does proper split DNS by default, using the search domains of each interface. That way you can configure a global DNS resolver while still being able to resolve local hostnames and without leaking other queries. I just hope they’ll also add DoH support, which is less likely to be blocked on a corporate network.

        • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
          3·
          9 months ago

          and entirely optional

          In.the sense that it is usually delivered with all the other optional modules, and for alternatives or the old default you would need a bunch of shims and wrappers.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    25·
    9 months ago

    I use distros with systemd but damn, pretty soon it’s not gnu/linux anymore, it’ll be systemd/linux. systemd already manages services, bootloader, dns and networking. Maybe they’ll replace coreutils next and the transition is completed.

  • m4@kbin.social
    24·
    9 months ago

    Gentoo comes with OpenRC as default so I roll with it. And it’s simple and it works.

    Plus the idea of having to randomly wait for some obscure stuff to block for a minute the boot/shutdown is not my thing.

    • dneaves@lemmy.world
      12·
      9 months ago

      For a while I had an Asus laptop, and no matter what, it seemed to not want to work properly with systemd-based distros. It would hang on-boot about 95+% of the time, I’d hard shut-off, restart, repeat.

      On a whim, I tried Void Linux (runit) on it. And for whatever reason, it worked.

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    232·
    9 months ago

    People that complain about people not running systemd. Why does it bother you so much? :P

    • Waffelson@lemmy.worldOP
      61·
      9 months ago

      I’m wondering why people do things that don’t seem profitable from my point of view

        • Waffelson@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          9 months ago

          Does absence of problems count?

          I’m not sure if it was related to systemd, but when I used void linux I had a strange sound problem that I never had on systemd distros, when I tried to change the volume level, it returned to its original level, I tried to find solution but I didn’t found because void linux isn’t very popular distro, and probably only I had this problem

  • notabot@lemm.ee
    234·
    9 months ago

    SysV init works more reliably, is smaller, does just one job and is much, much better architected.

    SystemD tends to fail if you do anything out of the ordinary, is massively bloated, has it’s claws into far too many parts of the system, is IMHO poorly architected, the many of the individual components are poorly designed and the whole thing is a huge, and utterly unnecessary, attack surface.

    SystemD is probably adaquate if you just want to use your machine in the most basic way, but as soon as you try to do anything beyond that you start running into the rough edges and bad design decisions that it’s plagued with.

    • jrgd@lemm.ee
      13·
      9 months ago

      Could you elaborate on this? As someone who uses SystemD extensively on workstations and servers for spawning and managing both system-level and user-level services, I do find minimal issues overall with SystemD minus some certain functionalities such as socket spawning/respawning.

      Of course some of default SystemD’s housekeeping services do suck and I replace them with others. I would like to see the ability to just remove those services outright from my systems as separate packages since they do remain useless, but it isn’t that big of an issue.

      • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
        131·
        9 months ago

        I also use systemd a lot and it baffles me people can claim sysvinit was more reliable with a straight face.

        Half the time I restarted MySQL in the sysvinit days (pre-upstart as well), it would fail to stop it then try to start a new instance of it with the old one still running and the only way to fix it was to manually stop the other instance.

        Process management is like the one thing systemd really does well thanks to cgroups, it’s impossible for it to lose track of processes because the process lied about its pidfile.

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        51·
        9 months ago

        SysV init does one job, it runs a set of scripts in an admin defined order, the init portion of SystemD attempts to solve a dependency graph at boot time and execute the startup scripts (units) in the order it devines from that. The big problems I’ve had around that have been services silently failing to start because it failed to resolve the ordering, and the difficulty of inserting a new unit into the ordering in a specific place. It’s doable if there happens to be a target at the point you want, but if not you can’t really do it as the existing, and any new, services all sequenced on the existing target. With SysV, of course, setting the service start order is trivial.

        The thing is, if SystemD was just an init system it wouldn’t be as bad, and has some useful ideas, but it tries to replace huge swathes of the system. As you say, some, and I’d say most, of the default housekeeping services suck, and you need to replace them. Unfortunately this then breaks the much vaunted integration of those services. Leaving them on the system isn’t a great plan as it just leaves the extra attack surface. So now you need to contemplate repackaging it to exclude the stuff you don’t need, which is a huge pain, and makes keeping up-to-date a big job. You’ve also got to worry about breaking dependencies from other packages.

        Probably the biggest issue though is the huge attack surface SystemD exposes on your system. We’ve just seen an example of how that can be taken advantage of, with malware in a library way down the dependency chain from the system library that gets jammed into all sorts of things. I understand there is an effort underway to reduce those dependencies, but it’ll always be worse than simply not doing that in the first place.

        The architectural and design issues are to do with the way the different parts are so tightly linked when they have no rational reason for being, the level of complexity introduced to core services and the incoherence of some of the choices around behavior. A recent bugbear was the automounter. It works most of the time, but if a mount unit fails it just gives access to the mountpoint, when by definition you obviously and explicitly didn’t want that. It also has a nasty habit of marking the unit failed, so future attempts also get bypassed until you reset it or have a recovery unit to do that.

        Anyway this turned into a wall of text, and its late, so I’m going to stop there, I hope it’s reasonable coherent.

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        9 months ago

        Systemd has a larger attack surface area since it touches more things, even though you can assign user accounts and such. Just the simple fact that it does more things than simply executing a shell script (like everything before systemd does) makes it more vulnerable.

        • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          9 months ago

          Systemd has a larger attack surface area since it touches more things

          That’s what the critics always say but are the things it manages unnecessary? If not, you’d use other tools for that but the overall attack surface would be the same.

  • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
    18·
    9 months ago

    I can actually configure and understand everything the UNIX way, which is actually important to me, because I do some wacky shit with my system + I’m a developer, I physically need to understand my system so I can debug it when it starts to eat shit

    Although, seriously, if you’re not a developer and don’t intend on doing something specific with your system, just pick a mainstream distro and roll. I install Mint MATE or Ubuntu on my secondary systems too.

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    215·
    9 months ago

    The developer of SystemD was mildly rude to some people back in 2009

    That means everything he makes is pure evil by definition and explanations as to why it’s bad will be invented post-hoc to make it make sense.

  • devilish666@lemmy.world
    16·
    9 months ago

    At this point i don’t care anymore if my system has systemd or whatever, as long it’s works i don’t have complaint
    Maybe back when I’m still young i will agree with majority linux enthusiasm that systemd is bloat, GUI is bloat, or whatever. But now as long it’s work & can do job properly i don’t care or even care

    • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
      176·
      9 months ago

      Life is bloat.

      Jokes aside, GUI really is bloat. Especially when it’s made by a corporate company with absolute dogshit development practices.

      On a more serious note, systemd is bloat. With all of you new kids coming over to this side, start with the right way: the runit way. Also compile Gentoo whilst you’re at it.

      Obligatory /s if anyone is offended, you bunch of snowflakes

  • I_like_cats@lemmy.one
    13·
    9 months ago

    I’m not an anti-systemd extremist. I use Void because it is a simple distro that doesn’t break as often as Arch does, while also being very up-to-date.

    I do have some things I dislike about systemd though which is why I will continue avoiding it in the future.

    • It doesn’t follow the Unix Philosophy. This is a big problem for me, I want to be able to switch out different parts of my system as I please. Systemd is a collection of projects that are all so deeply integrated that you can’t use them without also running the Systemd init system. And now Desktop Environments are starting to depend on Logind for example and there’s no alternative for non-systemd users. (Except Elogind but that’s just Logind ripped out of SystemD)
    • It’s bloated and has many features I don’t use. I just need an init system to start all my services at boot and restart them if they fail. Nothing more

    Also using a Distro without Systemd is not really that hard

    • Titou@feddit.de
      3·
      9 months ago

      I really need to meet irl somebody who got it’s arch system breaking by itself, because i installed it dozens of times and it never happened to me

    • Crazazy [hey hi! :D]@feddit.nl
      142·
      9 months ago

      Hate to be that guy, but all those articles are 5 years or older. Have people had more recent complaints about systemd or did that movement that complains about it kinda move on?

      • Katlah@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        132·
        9 months ago

        People don’t need more recent complaints when those complaints are still relevant today.