I know I’m not the only one that said this but I really can’t stand how systemd is becoming “the norm” init system for every major distro, this is bad.
it is especially bad when certain apps are built specifically for systemd, locking users behind a specific init system and compatibility issues spark because you don’t use a mainstream one , this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os, picking and choosing what goes on and off while still being usable.
I switched to artix Linux with openRC a while ago the moment systemd added code for potential age verification, they called it malicious compliance but I really didn’t like the smell of that, now I’m fighting tooth and nail with some applications because they’re systemd dependent, resulting in me creating custom scripts to mitigate their issues.
I didn’t mention anything about people needing to use it.
I don’t have an issue with distros using systemd, my issue lies in how major distributions implemented systemd without other options, which created an environment where app developers have to build for the most common init system in mind, you don’t think that’s an issue? having apps only compatible with one init system like how some apps are only compatible with windows, that’s not libre, its still pushing users towards a specific obvious choice
systemd works best, scales well and causes less pain at maintaining
The “less pain” you experience today might come with the cost of being tied to the systemd ecosystem. If a future version introduces a breaking change or a bug that affects the whole stack, there is no easy “switch” to a lighter alternative without rebuilding the system, its closely tied to the Linux kernel and does more than it should.
though I agree with you on being scalable and easy to maintain that’s one of the pros of it being a monolithic suite, everything just works
Thank goodness I’m not a major distro maintainer and don’t have to deal with all that shit. However, the times I did come into contact with it weren’t as bad as with upstart and sysvinit.
Let me stir up your anxiety with this simple question: that if future version of kernel introduces a breaking change or a bug that affects the whole stack?
I don’t know what ur asking tbh, rephrase.
Apply the same worries to the kernel, does your panic holds?
You sound new to the ecosystem at large, and I don’t mean that to be condescending, just that you may not have all the context needed to understand why it exists. Any distro that exists right now can flip back to SysV if they want to. They just don’t want to. It may be more flexible to the neckbeards, but it’s massively more comprehensive in scaling and integrating than a set of Init scripts. It has huge benefits to system integrators, OEMs, and especially the people who manage the largest concentration of Linux deployments: Datacenter Ops teams.
The fact that you, a Desktop user takes issue with that is meaningless to the ecosystem at large. I manage thousands of deployed bare metal machines, and I’d never switch back, because it SysV was fucking painful. Sure it was easier to debug in some cases, but was it as useful or reliable? Not even close.
Just go use something else and stop letting it bother you. You’ll feel better in the long run.
telling me I’m new and I don’t have context isn’t contributing anything to this conversion.
you can start by making a counter argument, someone mentioned GNU tool chain reliance, they did a good job of swaying my opinion.
Why would I care about swaying your opinion? Nobody here responding to you is invested in YOUR opinion on the matter, or cares what you think about it. They are simply correcting your misinformed attitude about some things from what I can see.
If anything they’re concerned you’re running around in the world with misguided opinion, and potentially misinforming others.