Gentoo

[james_s]

Could somebody explain what it is that creates such strong opinions about SystemD? I run Ubuntu and Debian on several machines and have used it for years. These are primarily systems that I use to perform specific utilitarian functions and I don't really mess with them. I've heard a lot of rage surrounding that change but I don't know offhand if/how much I should care. What does it mean for me, the user of FOSS for practical rather than idealistic reasons?

[I wanted a rude username]

systemd is useful because it solves some important problems for distros ... hence why so many have adopted it. The major criticisms stem from how ambitious it is ... to the point of the second system effect.

Ultimately it is bound to succeed because there is no alternative that delivers all of its functionality.

Personally, journald and all of systemd's command line syntax rub me the wrong way, but in IT I have always tried to keep the philosophy that you can't hold back the tide. In practice, there will be no effect on most users.

[Monkeh]

If you're looking for something that just works and maintains its state of working, I'd suggest Debian.

Only in-between kneejerk half-arsed violent changes like their switch to systemd, which is still partial at best.

Sorry, lost all vestiges of respect for their so-called stability there.

Fair enough. So fair in fact, that I will join your dislike of systemd and raise you one seriously-dislike-systemd. Possibly accompanied by some derisive remarks.

It's not even that I dislike systemd - it's that they didn't switch. They dropped it on top and put some half-arsed helper scripts together which are full of bugs and race conditions and called it good.  All the old init scripts, new bugs. What was the point?!

what would you consider to be a good solution for someone that liked debian up to the point of systemd crap injection?

Well, there's Devuan if it's still alive. I've been using Alpine where I just need a system to blob some package down on and go.

Could somebody explain what it is that creates such strong opinions about SystemD? I run Ubuntu and Debian on several machines and have used it for years. These are primarily systems that I use to perform specific utilitarian functions and I don't really mess with them. I've heard a lot of rage surrounding that change but I don't know offhand if/how much I should care. What does it mean for me, the user of FOSS for practical rather than idealistic reasons?

It's different, which puts a lot of people off. Personally, I find it extremely awkward to work with for what should be simple tasks. The biggest issue I have is the devs need a serious application of cluebat and their egos flushing down a black hole (if we can find one big enough). They can't be trusted to do what is in the best interests of the tool.

[greenpossum]

Could somebody explain what it is that creates such strong opinions about SystemD? I run Ubuntu and Debian on several machines and have used it for years. These are primarily systems that I use to perform specific utilitarian functions and I don't really mess with them. I've heard a lot of rage surrounding that change but I don't know offhand if/how much I should care. What does it mean for me, the user of FOSS for practical rather than idealistic reasons?

Basically rage by people who have always done things the old way and are uncomfortable with learning. 95% of common tasks have a direct equivalent. After a bit of usage it becomes second nature. I use and maintain systems with SysV and systemd and never had any difficulty working things out, even writing my own units. I should go look if there was a similar resistance to shifting from /etc/rc to SysV in the past.

For the average user you will not see any difference. For enterprise use there is functionality that the SysV init system cannot provide.

For the OP, if you want a stable system without surprises in say the desktop, maybe try an enterprise distro like CentOS. It will be maintained for years, but when support ends there will be a big jump to the next series. Drawback is that software may be ancient for reasons of stability. Classic trade off.

[bd139]

The big test is when something breaks. I dislike systemd because quite frankly it does it’s absolute best to get in your way then. You will LOVE systemd when you get a failed boot, your disk array isn’t attached and DBus throws errors on every systemd command.

Also writing systemd units wasn’t much fun until about a year ago due to numerous restart bugs. I have had a couple of services which stopped immediately but were running then systemd restarted them and got a trite reply on the bug report that my .net core application is at fault not systemd.

At least Microsoft got their boot stuff and DCOM right...

[Halcyon]

Volvo is dead IMHO, the vehicles they sell today are the same bloated luxury cars everyone else is making. They abandoned their whole customer base that wanted safe, utterly practical and dependable cars and handed that market over to Subaru. They spent decades crafting a reputation for building safe, rugged cars and threw it away over just a few short years.

I disagree, Volvo still sells quite well here. The difference is they are actually still built well, not like the crap that VW/Audi churn out. Gearbox problems especially. Even the budget-range BMWs and Mercedes are utter garbage and are no where near compatible to their more expensive models.

Subaru though? I wouldn't associate Subaru with safety. They are tinny, slapped together crap. I've driven everything from new Foresters and Outbacks to Impreza's and they are all the same: Overpriced and the quality is average at best (not to mention the engines are gutless and the CVT gearboxes are whiney and lacklustre). All Wheel Drive is probably they only thing going for them, but even then, under normal road conditions, AWD is almost never needed. Most people who drive cars in Australia with on-demand AWD almost never trigger it. AWD also won't give you any extra grip on the road, so if you drive like a moron, expect to hit a tree or a guard rail.

[0db]

The strategy of my colleagues: Buy a Mac. It will last for two years and you never need to update it. After two years, sell your Mac and buy a new Mac.

[Ampera]

The strategy of my colleagues: Buy a Mac. It will last for two years and you never need to update it. After two years, sell your Mac and buy a new Mac.

Not updating a computer for two years sounds like a recipe for disaster. There's nothing special about OS X that makes it so magically secure over alternatives.

Not to mention, this is opposed to being able to buy a computer, and use it until it croaks, and not having to go through a ton of trouble to loose a load of money on selling an old computer that would have devalued impressively within two years. Unless you particularly want the top of the line every two years (in which case why are you buying Apple gear), this is an easy way to have a terrible computer that costs you a lot of money.

----

As for systemd, at least within Arch, it does what it needs to do, and it doesn't get in my way. I can definitely understand it's overreaching qualities, but I wouldn't strike distros off for it because, well there's not much more option today anymore. If you really need System V style init, FreeBSD might be your best friend, so long as you're running software that can all be easily compiled on FreeBSD (which is actually a fair amount)

[RoGeorge]

To me, systemd seems malicious.

- Systemd does not follow the core values of GNU/Linux world, it follows the money.  Here, the idea of systemd was to ease the work of administering Linux in an enterprise environment, more precise, to make RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) easier to maintain/administer.  I'm not an sysadmin, but some are, and they generally like systemd when it's working, but when it doesn't work, everybody hates it badly, and want their old init scripts back.

- "Do one thing, and do that well", this is one of the core values Linux was faithful to.  Systemd is the opposite, wants to do everything.

- "Freedom of choice" (in software components) - Linux was always modular, one can take one part of the system and replace it with something else.  Software components were well encapsulated and without many dependencies, exactly for following the above "do one thing and do it well".  Now, e.g. Gnome Desktop requires systemd.

- "Everything is a file + piping" - very simple and powerful concepts.  This is probably the main beauty of *nix.  One can do anything by just reading/writing plain text files.  Not so much lately, with systemd.  Even the log files are not plain text any more, they are binaries.  Also, goodby short command lines, systemd commands are as verbose as a PowerShell line is in Windows.

To recap:
Systemd is a monolith, with it's own internal mechanisms.  Wants to rewrite everything, and own everything.  Does not align with Linux/UNIX core values.  It doesn't care much about users.  It's all made by Red Hat, for Red Hat.  It comes with all the bugs and pitfalls of a newly written software, not yet matured.  Systemd does not stay in its box, it floods all over the system.  Forces other software components (I'm afraid one day will be all of them) to align to systemd requirements.

If you ask me, RHEL is the Windows of the GNU/Linux world.  Nothing wrong with having around Windows, or RHEL.  They are both great OSs, just that they have a different orientation than the GNU/Linux world.  Nobody wants all the worlds mixed in a single grey mush paste.  I like diversity.  I like to have options.

It bothers me that Systemd is slowly turning the GNU/Linux world into a RHEL/Windows world.   

[bd139]

Spot on

[Ampera]

GNOME has captured enough ire in its own right, so don't feel alone in there. Window Maker forever!

I'd say systemd is still not as bad as Windows, as despite it having stuffed a bunch of things under a sheet, it's not completely and totally abstracted and hidden in secret confusion like Windows is. RHEL is a different beast entirely from your common distributions, and if you don't like it, then don't use it.

SysVinit is still around, and you can still totally use it. If you can't run GNOME on it, so what, at least in my experience GNOME barely works in the first place, and is a complete and total bloated mess that throws out years old conventions because they felt like it. CSS on desktop? Ditching status icons? Completely redesign the desktop interface to favour touch, and then have completely useless touch support? Blech, blech, blech.

Linux is still around, you can still change it however you want, but you have to be willing to /do/ that.

[rdl]

You guys make it sound like systemd is the Windows 10 of Linux.

[bd139]

Windows 10 is pretty good. Systemd is not....

[james_s]

I haven't yet encountered the problems with Systemd, not saying I'm a fan but until all the fluff I never even noticed the change.

Win10 on the other hand, I suffered through two years of using that at a former job and every day it felt like it was fighting against my wishes. Since moving on from that place I never looked back and never touched Win10 again and I'm much happier this way.

[mrflibble]

To recap:
Systemd is a monolith, with it's own internal mechanisms.  Wants to rewrite everything, and own everything.  Does not align with Linux/UNIX core values.  It doesn't care much about users.  It's all made by Red Hat, for Red Hat.  It comes with all the bugs and pitfalls of a newly written software, not yet matured.

In addition, an important subset of those who are supposed to deal with those bugs and pitfalls ... have not yet matured either. At least not in the functional capacity of shuffler and handler of them bug reports. "Acknowledge we may have a problem with xyz? Naaaah, must be upstream or whatever. *close* Neeeext!"