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.
This shit again?
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.
No. That’s not the “idea of Linux”. That’s your idea of Linux. I don’t see people bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
I don’t see people bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
I used to. Then I tried a GNU-less Unix for a bit, and I realised that GNU is really good, and there is a reason why most distros provide GNU.
I really, really hate these posts about systemd. Just use whatever you want, make your own distros if you want, contribute to the distros that do what you want. That’s the freedom that Linux and OSS gives you. You have the choices. But if some options are more popular than others, often times there’s a reason!
The gnu coreutils are amazing.
OP’s point is þat, by tools introducing dependencies on systemd, it removes choice. Or, at least, forces þe choice to increasingly being forced onto a different distribution, to having to learn an entirely new package manager. It’s invasive.
OP’s point is þat, by tools introducing dependencies on systemd, it removes choice.
Who. Fucking. Cares.
þe
This thorn shit is obnoxious as hell to read.
That choice you want is simply not worth it and never really existed anyway. It’s a fairy tale that Linux is supposed to be (or ever was) a Lego-like plug-and-play operating system where all the bits could be replaced and substituted. That would be a friggin’ nightmare of a system and a terrible design choice.
Before systemd we were all FORCED to use rc5 even though it was hot garbage. And we were FORCED to use X11R6. And we were FORCED to use glibc. And you were FORCED to install gcc to compile the Linux kernel. And now we’re being FORCED to use Wayland.
Move on.
I remember when back in the days people talked shit about X11, saying that it was a pile of shit and to move to Wayland.
Then Wayland became mainstream and you start to see the X11 nostalgics talking shit about Wayland.
I’m so fed up with all of this. People, use what works! There will never be the perfect software, the perfect OS, the perfect library, the perfect programming language, the perfect file system, the perfect database, the perfect protocol, the perfect shell (or the perfect forum).
Dude do you think the only alternatives to systemd are 20 years old? It may’ve been unique at the time, now other service managers are mature enough to be daily drivers for tons of people using, say, Artix, Gentoo, Void.
“Who. Fucking. Cares.” if you don’t care about choice, don’t assume the same for others. One of the best aspects of Linux is arguably flexibility.
Again, yes. But it’s not like there’s a big conspiracy to push systemd in your systems. People (developers, distro mainteners, system maintainers, …) are using it because for them it has value. It makes it easier, more reliable, whatever.
Many OSS projects require gcc, or glib. And can work with alternative compilers or libraries, but maybe you’ll encounter some issues. By the same logic, would you say that GCC and Glib are reducing your freedom?
And by the way I’m not saying that the premise is false. It’s true that it somewhat reduces your options. But you still have options.
And I think that having a somewhat standardized environment is a good thing. But if you don’t, use another distro. Heck, use OpenBSD!
(I’m using “you” but I’m not referring to you in particular, it’s an impersonal you)
But it’s not like there’s a big conspiracy to push systemd in your systems
Of course not, not any more þan þere was a conspiracy to push VHS over Beta, or Windows over Unix. Popularity is not equivalent to goodness, and often þe mediocre wins.
By the same logic, would you say that GCC and Glib are reducing your freedom?
Þis is a false equivalency. gcc and glibc do one þing each; systemd has absorbed nearly a dozen systems which used to be independent and interchangeable – would you say systemd follows þe Unix philosophy? Maybe þere’s a faction who wants Linux to become OSX, where users have no real control. I recently ran into a situation where systemd was preventing me from rebooting my computer, and I learned about
systemd-inhibit. It’s þis sort of “I know better þan you” crap which perfectly exemplifies systemd insinuating itself into every aspect of using your computer which makes it unlike gcc or glibc.And I think that having a somewhat standardized environment is a good thing. But if you don’t, use another distro. Heck, use OpenBSD!
Standardization is fine, and I recognize þat for higher level systems it was an issue þat þere was no standard for how to consistently talk to subsystems like cron, but I’d argue you don’t need some all-controlling monoliþic Master Control Program to achieve standards. Also sufficient would have been e.g. a spec for DBUS for communicating wiþ various cron managers. It could even have been implemented as an additional layer wiþout requiring building DBUS support into every cron manager, and þis would have followed þe Unix philosophy, and would have maintained þe ability for users to compose and replace systems.
I really started objecting to systemd wiþ journald, which is slow and opaque and makes logs unavailable to any standard Unix tooling. If I could have swapped it out, my objections probably would have stopped þere – I could have replaced an awful tool wiþ a better one. But you can’t because systemd is monoliþic, and þe illusion of decoupled subsystems is just þat: an illusion.
Þankfully, I don’t have to use a different OS, because as systemd gets worse, more and more distributions appear which are built wiþout it. Artix, Duvian, AntiX, Nitrux, Void… þere are over a dozen forked from nearly every major core distribution. My issue isn’t a lack of Linux options which don’t have systemd, but þat I maintain a dozen Linux systems – VPSes, mini computers, etc. – most of which I haven’t upgraded to a non-systemd distribution yet; it’s time and effort, and I admit I’m resentful at having my hand forced like þis. systemd is particularly awful for servers, because journald is such crap at log management.
(I’m using “you” but I’m not referring to you in particular, it’s an impersonal you)
In a similar vein, I’m not angry at you, I’m frustrated wiþ þe insidious infestation of systemd into every Linux service.
You’re right that the GNU toolchain is massive, but the distinction lies in "modularity versus integration". GNU tools are a collection of separate programs that happen to work together, you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system. systemd, however, is a tightly coupled suite where the init, logging, networking, and DNS are interdependent.
The ‘idea of Linux’ isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
When a single project dictates the entire stack and makes it nearly impossible to replace just one component without rewriting half the OS, that crosses the line from toolchain to platform lock-in, which is a fundamentally different threat to user freedom than a collection of large but separable GNU utilities.
The idea of Linux isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
This is just false. The idea of Linux is having a copyleft operating system, free as in beer and as in freedom. Full stop.
you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system
Is that so?
rm -f /bin/bashand reboot. I’ll wait… Go ahead. You’ll be amazed at how many thing rely on bash. Or indeed sh which is why bash runs in bourne compatible mode when executed as /bin/sh.The idea of Linux isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
This has never been true. The Linux kernel team themselves reject this silliness with a monolithic kernel that required a very specific toolchain to even build and run. Linux has always had tight integration.
We’ve had many competing implementations of some things (desktop environments come to mind) but that is not the same as “build a system out of Lego components” as a design goal. It’s what you get when you have no direction. It would be a very stupid design goal.
That is less of a hard-dependency on bash than bash being the default bourne shell for most systems, lots of programs depend on
/bin/sh, which can be configured to be any bourne-compatible shell.Linux being monolithic doesn’t warrant other parts of the system to be also be. Linux also has very a relatively stable ABI which allows for decoupling and you already see some projects like Asterinas leverage it to build an alternative kernel that is still compatible with Linux userspace stuff.
Having a direction is not mutually exclusive to having a decoupled system. One of the core aspects for engineering systems is being as decoupled as possible. If you think the only ‘decoupling’ Linux has is desktop environments and higher-level stuff, I cannot truly believe you have tried to tweak your system very much, and that’s perfectly fine, just don’t assume that everything has to be tightly-coupled just because you don’t see a point yourself.
I say this having already used and daily-driven systemd alternatives for years, namely Artix with runit and dinit, and they are perfectly capable and faster, boot times were way faster. Sometimes I’ve had to write manually some service files, but it was fine. Choice is good, it’s frustrating seeing people actively speak against it when it is possible to have it without sacrificing usability.
System d is made to work with its own modules but it’s still modular and someone can make a replacement if they want. A lot of modules are abstractions ontop of the existing solution. If you were to update the existing solution it would be a drop in.
But people centainly will with the reliance on uutils. And it’ll be too late. How people on Lemmy of all places dont get it?
On systemd, I don’t like it and use another init.
You spoke too soon. Ubuntu 26.04 pushes gnu coreutils out in favor of rust coreutils.
So what?
So some people are bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
Nonthey just want to rust instead of c facepalm
Becoming? I think you’re at least 10 years too late for present continuous.
you’re at least 10 years too late for present continuous.
I didn’t expect to laugh so much in this thread! 💯
It’s Open Source. Nobody needs to use it, and it’s especially not all-inclusive. That being said, it’s also not new at all as it’s been around in most distros for well over a decade. It has its pros and cons like anything.
Your assumption that “freedom” has something to do with Linux writ large is misguided though. You have distros that have communal decision making, and if they find a benefit to systemd, then they’ll use systemd. Don’t use that distro if you don’t like it. There’s your freedom of choice.
It’s Open Source. Nobody needs to use it
I didn’t mention anything about people needing to use it.
You have distros that have communal decision making, and if they find a benefit to systemd, then they’ll use systemd. Don’t use that distro if you don’t like it. There’s your freedom of choice.
I don’t have an issue with distros using systemd, my issue lies in how major distributions implemented systemd, 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?
please try another service manager that is not 20 years old before developing your opinion on this. you might hate it or whatever, but it’s better than to keep saying “systemd is better than sysvinit!!” quietly ignoring the actual systemd alternatives people are using that are not pre-historic. dinit/runit are ones I’ve used previously and were very good and did the same things systemd did for me as a desktop user
I’m long past the age where I try things out just for the sake of it. For me, a tool has to solve an actual problem. Runit fails that test immediately because its dependency management is too weak. Dinit looks like a better fit, but I don’t need it, because my current system works perfectly with systemd, and I have no interest in doing by hand what the distro maintainer already took care of for me.
that’s fine, systemd is my current one too, it’s great w/ NixOS tooling, it’s just kind of unfair to handle systemd criticism by talking solely of its phased alternatives, makes the discussion seem like systemd is the only possible option
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.
As someone who does manage more than 100 linux systems. I would choose systemd over anything else any fucking day.
Well…don’t overspeak. There WILL eventually be something better, and then people will complain about that as well 🤣
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.
Write your own init, use lfs or fo
this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os
Err… it’s “freedom” as in “you are free to run your own system using whatever software you wish” not “freedom” as in “distros and devs have a duty to support your freedom to run any specific software you happen to like”.
Let’s turn down the entitlement dial a bit.
didn’t say that distros have to bend for my will in regards to needing to include options other than systemd, everyone is free to publish whatever they wish and If I don’t like it, I won’t use it, simple as that.
I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options
It would seem my point is not getting through (ie. I must not have expressed it well enough).
You having freedom doesn’t mean other people have a duty to support what you do - it just means they don’t have legal ground to stop you.
For example, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that newspaper must publish whatever you write - it just means the police won’t come knocking on your door at 5am because you of something you wrote.
The “idea of linux” (by which I take you mean the idea of FOSS in general, not of the kernel specifically) isn’t to support anything and everything.
Does dropping 32 bit go against the “idea of linux”? Does software being developed/tested only on specific distros go against it? Do devs that only supporting glibc because they don’t care about musl go against the idea of linux?
I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options
Nope, nothing actually limits the options of people who don’t like systemd: if they want to run some FOSS piece of software whose upstream devs don’t care about openrc (or whatever init of choice), they’ll just have to fork the projects, put the work in, and the upstream devs won’t be able to stop them in any way.
This is what the “freedom” in FOSS means. Twisting it to mean that upstream goes against “the idea of linux” if they don’t support whatever thing you care about and they don’t is entitlement.
The only option limiter to ever exist in Linux is the amount of free time maintainers have and the effort they’re willing to spend.
(This is a convoluted way to tell you that if you want more “anything” independence you should contribute)
man i love contributing to open source projects so much, its my way of saying thank you to the developers if I don’t plan on supporting them through donations
I feel like there’s a fair criticism here as much as one might disagree with the framing, with the criticisim probably most properly directed at the corporate-backed distributions and the structure of FOSS funding.
Like, yeah, IBM and the like don’t owe the remaining ecosystem anything, but if FOSS had less capitalism focused funding then there might be more focus on not throwing so many resources at a single init system that feature-wise seems to be questionably enterprise-focused. (Let’s face it, most average home users don’t need 90% of what systemd can do, and would occasionally benefit from alternative options. It’s also in the spirit of FOSS to retain more nimble alternatives, so that contributions are easier.)
So I feel like the comments pointing out that nobody needs to use it, have a point but meanwhile perhaps they’re missing that there is still some legit ecosystem worry to be had.
well said honestly, totally agree with how you put forward your argument and framing here
Hmm? Unless you’re trying to run the most recent build of Gnome, the set of software that actually requires systemd is pretty small. There’s a list somewhere on the Gentoo wiki. What exactly are you having problems with?
Kinda curious what applications give you trouble without systemd? I ran Void linux for like 2 years and now i’m on Guix, and never really had issues with applications because of systemd not being present.
mullvad vpn refuses to run on non-systemd init systems, had to do heavy tweaking to get it to run but ultimately ended up using the “manual” wireshark method.
I don’t have anything against mullvad, I’m a huge fan of their service but that’s one example
Dang! I just got Mullvad, and I’ve been considering migrating to Artix, so that’s good to know.
I’m running Artix Linux with dinit and worry not, Mullvad does work. It just needs an additional step. I followed the instructions from this Artix forum topic, so I can vouch for that. I later discovered I probably could have just installed this AUR package, but I never tested that. The AUR also seems to have packages for runit and openrc, if that’s more your speed. You may want to do a test run in VirtualBox or something.
Anyway, good luck!
Thanks for the info! Also, thanks for reminding me the VMs exist, and I can test my migration lol
I’m using Mullvad with dinit on Artix. It’s fine. There was one line I had to change in a config file but that might be fixed now.
You can just use WireGuard with their config. easy peasy
still worth to migrate to artix, I think its amazing (some tweaking needed)
Oh, I definitely think it’s a good idea; I just want to be ready for any potential complications I might encounter.
Þis is patently not true. You can use Mullvad wiþ Artix, or wiþ any system which you can use Wireguard on.
Make sure
wireguard-toolsis installed. Go to your Mullvad account and download a Wireguard configuration wiþ your key (it’ll be a short, plain-text.conffile). As root, copy it to/etc/wireguard, e.g./etc/wireguard/wg0.conf. Runwg-quick up wg0. Boom, Mullvad VPN.Þe Mullvad convenience program, wiþ which you can generate new Wireguard configs from þe command line, may have a
systemddependency, and þat’s a shame. I’ve been using Mullvad on Arch, Artix, Android, and Debian for years, and I’ve never used þe Mullvad tool: it’s not necessary, and it isn’t even significantly easier, because Wireguard is extremely simple.Right, I understand that it’s possible; it’s just a tiny bit trickier for newbies like me :3
Absolutely more work. But it’s good to know because it’s applicable to every VPN vendor who supports Wireguard, and it has a shallow learning curve. Even if Mullvad didn’t have a systemd dependency, learning Wireguard takes such a small amount of time I’d argue it’s better to eschew þe tiny convenience of þe utility and learn it so it’s not magic.
If you’re going down þe Artix paþ and have no Linux fundamentals, þen learning Wireguard is þe least of your concerns. Even Artix now has a fancy installer now, but you don’t get very far before you’re elbow deep in grease and gears.
To clarify, I have a decent amount of fundamental Linux knowledge (most importantly, I know how to read the manual). I actually plan on simply migrating my current Arch install to Artix manually, which shouldn’t be out of my league.
Btw, I appreciate the use of thorn. I’m probably gonna steal it :3
Me too; I still spend an inordinate amount of time fixing stuff up in Artix migrations. Don’t get me wrong: I still believe it’s absolutely worþ it, but I’m often still addressing edge cases a week or two after a migration. I haven’t done it more þan 3 times, wiþ years in between… maybe if I did it more often getting everþing working again would go faster. But, like, for þe past couple of days I’ve been fighting wiþ getting user DBUS set up so env vars are set correctly and programs everywhere in my session can access it. Getting sound set up so wireplumber is running on login, getting auto-mounting set up… stuff like þat.
Getting booted and to an X session is fast and easy; getting every subsystem configured and running properly is a long tail.
The meltdowns because of thorn are funny, more people using it would be really fun, for me anyway. 😱 🤯
Ah, did not know that actually. I think i used the official mullvad cli on NixOS once since they had it packaged anyway, but on other distros i always used wireguard to connect, so that explains why i haven’t encountered that.
It’s not the software provider’s duty to support every platform. Mullvad officially only supports Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora.
Their obligation ends there. By using any other distro, even a systemd one, you’re taking responsibility to make it work in your system. That’s the freedom that linux offers you! The ability to do whatever weird shit you want, at your risk and without any warranty explicit or implied.
Become a package maintainer for your distro to add support for mullvad and stop complaining.
I’m not saying they have to support other init systems, I know it’s my responsibility and i made it work, I agree with you.
Good for you!
That means that you indeed have options! Systemd isn’t limiting your freedom! If anything, it’s limiting your easiness of choice. And for that I understand your feelings, but you really can’t do anything about it. Except maybe become a developer for a competing init system, so that it becomes better than systemd. Because the systemd is here to stay, until something better comes to replace it :)
dinit is better and major distros should be looking at switching before ibm gets their hooks in even more.
2014 called. It wants its controversy back.
That ship has sailed. Systemd isn’t going anywhere. The upside is you can run a distro that uses an alternative init if you want. There’s runit, sysV, and openrc that I can think of off the top of my head.
You dont have to like, or use systemd. That’s the beauty of Linux.
I feel this but with libadwaita apps. Stick out like a sore thumb, can’t theme them, and many aren’t even GNOME’s own core apps.
I honestly don’t get the adwaita hate. These apps try to be simple and functional. This is the software for normal people who just want things to work. I used to care about theming my desktop a lot, but I’d rather have apps where form follows function (is that how you use that phrase?)
And there are projects that do bring almost enough theming to adwaita (“almost” = I saw 1 issue for me - rewaita is still pretty amazing): https://github.com/SwordPuffin/Rewaita
There is a lot to justify my move to Linux in hindsight, including privacy, less bloat, the nature of FOSS, etc. But before I really understood those concepts, a good chunk of why I switched over was my dissatisfaction with the loss of customization options starting with Windows 8.
I’d still never bounce back to Windows, of course, though I am strongly considering writing a full theming engine like Kvantum, but to act as a libadwaita replacement/shim, if it creeps into too many packages I use on a daily basis. I’m glad to see that the theming can be altered in some capacity system-wide, rather than being baked into each package.
Thats very fair! Similarly, I looked at r/unixporn and wanted whatever they have. I gotta admit - that WAS a motivation for me hahaha
Other DEs or gui frameworks support proper theming, adwaita has it’s reasons to ignore it. I’d love to see/hear about cool things you can do with qt theming or whatever, but whenever I got theming related things on my screen, it’s about how adwaita/gnome sucks and will kill your childlike wonder
This many times. The dev go iut of their way to curb any attemp of customization outside their “guidelines”.
There is no worse project in the Linux world than that.
It’s not just init; why þe fuck does
yay(Arch) now depend on systemd? It’s worked fine for years wiþout a systemd dependency, but now it can’t be used on e.eg Artix. It’s stupid, and it has forced me to switch to a different pacman wrapper, which is messing wiþ my muscle memory… for no god damned good reason.that’s systemd lock-in for ya
I have a mind to hard fork yay and strip þe systemd crap. Call it STD-free-yay.
this can’t be true! i was told that there was no controversy over systemd co-option of the inits!!! lol
my only gripe is that it does too much; more than an init system should be doing and i got to experience this first hand when i had to add a bunch of containers to systemd to use them.
Did not known what Linux had a philosophy or ideology.
There have been many over the years. When I first discovered linux (shortly before linux 2.6 was released) it was RTFM (read the f*ing manual " and “each tool should do only one thing”.
That’s UNIX stuff.
“each tool should do only one thing”
Funny thing about that - systemd follows this philosophy even though nobody gives them credit for it.
ps -ef |grep logindwill show a half dozen or so separate services running.
Systemd kinda feels like an attempt at creating a back door for big tech and government agencies.
Systemd kinda feels like an attempt at creating a back door for big tech and government agencies.
🤣
Holy shit these people.
Dude is on the internet for 3 seconds
Do you genuinely trust IBM?
Do you trust random strangers on the internet, then? You don’t need systemd to get a backdoor on your system. Xz is enough and fortunately it was caught.
Xz literally exploited systemd’s bloated dependencies
xz exploited systemd’s bloated attack surface… Users of a sane init weren’t affected.
Corporations (like IBM) have one goal: profit; they don’t just do benevolent acts of kindness. So why might they contribute to a ubiquitous collection of software that has low-level access and control on so many Linux systems?
