• bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    1 year ago

    Systemd apparently. Every time someone brings it up, the thread devolves into a religious flame war.

    • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve never got this either. I’ve been using Linux exclusively for over 4 years, multiple devices, tested dozens of distros, almost all Systemd-based and I havent ever experienced any problems that the anti-systemd folks talk about.

      Or at least, they were so rare and minimal that I didn’t notice.

      Coming from an IT background dealing with 99% Windows machines and Microsoft products, maybe my bar was on the floor, but Linux has been soooo much more stable and dependable than Windows.

      • Helix 🧬@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        1 year ago

        Been using Linux since 2004 and systemd has made my life significantly easier. People bickering about systemd are usually ultra nerds without arguments real people would consider important.

    • dosse91@lemmy.trippy.pizza
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. Coming from the Windows world, systemd felt quite familiar compared to other components in a typical linux system, I always liked it. It doesn’t really follow the unix philosophy though, so it gets a lot of hate.

        • spauldo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ditching the UNIX philosophy is a bad idea.

          It’s a very useful guideline. There are times when those rules should be broken - systemd may be one of those - but by and large the UNIX philosophy has served us well.

    • fUcK sYsTeMd ItS fAsCiSt BuLlShIt If ThEAy PuT iT iN lInUx AnD tAkE oUr FrEeDoM i WiLl SwItCh To BsD uMmM IdK wHaT iT dOeS rEaLlY sOmEtHiNg WiTh SeRvIcEs I gUeSs FuCk SyStEmD!!11!!

    • Swiggles
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I used Linux (and some Unix) before systemd was a thing and init scripts are jank. So much boilerplate and that was before things like proper isolation existed and other more modern features.

      I don’t understand why anyone would want that back.

      A replacement of systemd with something else would be fine, but please no more init scripts and pointless run levels.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Upstart was fine. It does the parallel init thing without taking over the whole OS.

        • Swiggles
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I almost forgot it existed. It was a slight improvement, but with a whole bunch of new problems (most notable race conditions which were never fixed) and it was made obsolete by systemd.

          It was a good evolutionary step only used by Ubuntu iirc. It was better at that time than the previous init system, but not more than that and it never found wide adaption.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah when systemd came out it was over a decade since I touched an init script. So the only difference to me was my computer booted up faster.

    • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was a little bit of a hassle initially to convert various custom init scripts into systemd unit files, but it was worth it IMO. Now the init scripts feel kinda jank in comparison lol.

      On a barebones or embedded system I can see a lightweight init having a very big appeal though