Yup, windows is calling you.

Bye

Keep telling yourself that, meanwhile we’ll all see your obvious dislike of of general userland tools.

You clearly didn’t read did you:

The makedeb Package Repository (abbreviated MPR) is a user-maintained repository of build files (PKGBUILDs) that can be built with makedeb and then installed with APT.

Here’s a handy chart for you

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems

As you can see many have the ability to start services in parallel. Some script magic with graphviz will also do similar to analyse blame.

What’s wrong? Too many tools, way too fragmented and poorly integrated. It is very, very easy to get into trouble if you simply setup a dual stack system with IPv6-PD with those tools. With systemd it all works of the box with simples configuration files and its way more intuitive. For eg. cron is a mess, systemd timers share the unit config format which is way better and more scalable.

Do you honestly beloved thie mental gymnastics your getting into just to prove your point, go back to windows. Lol

Well done on using systemd how you wish, now move on and let others use it how they wish or remove it.

Why anyone would buy into this crap is beyond me.

That list of “features” never needed to be replaced by systemd and for the most part are provided by the other init offerings.

As for logging you may find yourself one with a system using systemd that has faced an error and cannot boot good luck reading the binary journal it makes, yes these entries can be pushed out to text file or syslog but if systemd falls over hard it will log to the default binary journal and you’ll need to use another install with systemd to run journalctl --file /path/to/mounted/journal which in an emergency is a true PITA.

It is not an outlet for those who you choose to espouse as “People who don’t want linux to evolve” far from it most of them just want systemd to stop trying to replace things that are not broken and for other projects to stop having it as a hard dependency. Yes it is modular, yes these can be disabled but it has so many tentacles that it is clear the intentions are wider than just being an init.

What’s wrong with ip, iproute2, iptables/nftables, ufw, firewalld, ntp, dnscrypt, privoxy, dnsmasq, openresolve, crond, sudo, mount, syslog-ng?

Are they somehow obsolete now?

If you want a basic bootloader your UEFI has one built in and/or you can boot the kernel directly with efistub, systemd-boot is so basic it’s pointless to the point that an unconfigured install of refind is a truckload better.

I get that this is a hot topic but waaay too many people are just adding pointless opinion and toxic opinion into this debate that doesn’t help anyone make what they want is a decent informed choice and tbh when I see Gnome make a hard dependency of systemd it makes me think either systemd is doing too much, is not modular enough, devs got lazy or all of the above.

And a final FYI I use systemd and have disabled much of it but can’t uninstall the parts I don’t need/want.

The kind of suggestion that does fuck all. Don’t force your myopic ignorance on others.

If you’re a new user you’d be better off moving on from here and not paying much attention. It’s a hot topic full of opinions that everyone will want to force on you.

If you really want to swap out the init system there are some things you need to know.

First, do you need a desktop environment(DE)/window manager(WM)? If so you’ll need to find a DE/WM that is not going to demand you use the mainstream init choice which currently is SystemD. If you want to use Gnome from your chosen distro repo’s then chances are it will pull SystemD with it.

If you want Gnome but not SystemD you’re gonna be building that beast from source every update and for the most part you’ll need to go direct to Gnome for any issue/bug you fall over and this too will be painful.

Simpler WMs will be more forgiving and will only rely on either xorg or wayland and will happily run on any init.

There will be other packages out there that also demand you use SystemD, so you’ll have to find them and decide if you need them or if there are alternatives that don’t have a hard dependency on SystemD.

All the current usable inits are written in C or C+ (except for GNU Shepherd, this is written in guile).

The benefit of swapping out the init system is mainly down to choice, necessity but again this all boils down to what the installation is for and what will it be doing.

For a good run down of the features of the init systems refer to these 2 urls: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Init

All of the init’s (except for epoch) provide parallel service startup so if boot time is a focus test each to find the fastest for your platform, Not all of them provide per-service config.

For example one can cobble together: minirc, busybox, syslogng, crond, iptables, lighttpd.

And the end result would be a relatively secure webserver with a small footprint, you could further extend this with nginx to sit in front of lighttpd to provide waf and cache features.

The biggest bug bear with SystemD is that it writes to binary log files and even though it can be configured to generate plain text, if it falls over in a bad way you will still only get a binary log file and if you’re in a situation where your only access is say busybox for emergencies. In this instance your only option is to boot from another systemd distro and mount the broken install and run:

$ journalctl --file /var/log/journal/system.journal

Other than that many take issue with SystemD trying replace parts of the system that many say don’t really need replacing like sudo, fstab, resolv.conf, etc but again these statements get full of opinion and don’t help us truly way up the differences and some of the SystemD alternatives misbehave or become hard dependencies other projects which makes it harder to disable parts and swap out to your chosen package.

I’ve tried to be more objective with this response and keep as much of my personal opinion out of this, But here is mine:

I don’t really like it but to make it easier to get support for my OS I put up with it, I daily drive arch and so must accept it. I could rip it out or run artix, I’ve gone down this path and got fed up with jumping hurdles to get what I wanted so went back to Arch and now I disable parts of it I don’t need/want, have it generate text log files, use openresolv and other choices.

But all 5 points can be said for all other distros running a DE.

This isnt rice, it’s that fine chopped pasta that can be used as rice!

😉

Another thing that appears to be suppressed about this farce is that the Asylum seekers that were on there and the ones who refused to board all arrived here via airplane and applied for asylum at the airport when they landed. So they never came “via an illegal route”.

A fair few of the ones who refused used to work for the UK when they were in Afghanistan.

Pusleaudio

Oh yes 😆 hur der I didn’t read da manual. Why is it in a tread about systemd people lower themselves to this kind of response!

And no I had read the manual and it’s down to how systemd handles IPv6 and rather than disable that I chose to disable resolved and return back to openresolv. Which works and is perfectly fine.

I stopped using resolved as it tends to ignore what I tell it to do and still grab DNS from the router which I don’t want and can’t disable on the proprietary router.

openresolv/Resolveconf was never broken in the first place so I’m not sure what systemd was trying to fix with this.

Pipewire for one

Just no, there are already alternatives popping up in place of parts of systemd.

And what happenes when redhat close this source up too?

Sure I posted this yesterday 🤔

I just want the software I’ve chosen to work and do what I want it to well.

I’m not choosing software based on anything else as it’s not part of my decision framework when making software choices. If it was where do you draw the line? Do we only vet the C tier if not why not vet the Dev team as they are the people that actually create the product , Then the Q&A and R&D teams because without them the software would be more buggy and not have cutting edge features.

It’s just a rabbit hole that’s best avoided and for the most part I’d argue that 90% of people don’t think or even care about the points raised because it’s the last thing they think about when choosing a browser.

Good for you if you do, That’s your choice.

Which ever one you chose don’t forget you need to do a good job at vetting all the top people involved just to ensure their personal morals and social opinions align with the current trends of social media.

This article has attracted the obvious responses it wants to attract.

I bet many who’ve responded in agreement with the sentiment of this article use windows which is tied to a company that has done far worse than brave software.

Edit: I am not sitting here for hour or more trying to figure out who is employed at a company of a piece of software I chose to use just to ensure their personal opinions, views and opinions align with current trends on what is sociably acceptable.

If we all were to apply this to all the software we use you will fast find out that you’ll be looking for quite a few alternatives to what you assumed was neutral or aligned to your view point.