This thread is permanently archived
What's the deal with systemd?
| People need to mindlessly hate something in order to feel like they belong to a community
| Well the downside is a lot of software is made to use systemd so you migth loose a bit of time with setting it up.
(as i understand it never tried it)
i see why ppl would complain since so mutch hooks into and the complexity of it,
when it will fail or have any kind of issue your going to have a hell of a time trying to get your PC to boot
| Software like systemd somehow violate unix philosophy a bit. They offer convenience in exchange for dependency - which is something that many *n*x users see as a problem.
Even thought I share this points of view, I am not bothered that much by systemd. I could easily live without it, but I understand why some people like it and I also don't mind using it if a distro relies on it - as long there are distros around that can run without it.
| Most opponent argues that systemd gives little to no option. You can't easily replace systemd, and most distros that do support systemd breaks without it. This makes for a very "Windows-like" approach. Compare this to distros which supports multitude of init system (Gentoo, for example); it doesn't force you to use one init system.
Note that I'm not counting 'package compatibilities' in this argument, but it should be considered too.
| I personally don't mind systemd, but I've been running openrc myself and it definitely feels a lot more performant than systemd.
| I had a "wait, I'm already running a DNS server" moment, yesterday when trying to open a tunnel on 53. Oh right, systemd...
This thread is permanently archived
| And is there any downside of not using them?
(like using systemd-less mx linux)