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.
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?