this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
53 points (84.4% liked)

Linux

48685 readers
743 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am not the author.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ravhall@discuss.online 43 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The reason why systemd has become so prevalent is not that it has been accepted by the community. It's that it has manpower. It is backed up by open source software companies that can provide much more manpower than developers like myself working on free software on their own time.

TLDR

[–] dlove67@feddit.nl 40 points 2 months ago (3 children)

But also it has been accepted by the "community", by and large.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I mean, what is his point? We should have worse software because then the devs are volunteers?

Is Linux now supposed to work like early Olympics?

[–] Findmysec@infosec.pub 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Explain how other init systems are necessarily worse than systemd

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

SystemD is not an init system. It provides that functionality, but processes have more life cycle steps than just initialize.

When you accept that, you realise that you cannot compare them.

SystemD provides functionality that they don't. Of course those that refuse to consider this will just claim it's bloat. To some DE's are bloat.

[–] Findmysec@infosec.pub 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Systemd is no longer just an init system, but the project began with Poettering's dislike of other init systems. I use systemd and I do not like its performance (too slow in some cases).

The tragedy is that being an end-user, it is ridiculously hard to replace systemd on "regular" distros. Admittedly, Debian can be moved back to sysVinit without backbreaking work, but the fact is that distros don't seem to have any intention of providing choice, making applications assume that systemd exists wherever they will be installed. That is the complaint I have against the Linux community

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There is Alpine and Void Linux which are commonly known of and used. Plus more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_distributions_without_systemd

Most distros independently decided that SystemD was superior. They had a choice and they chose. Distros are often maintained by volunteers in their free time. Same with software that depends on it. Expecting them to provide poor irrelevant choices is not how open source works. You're passing on your backbreaking work onto other people. If you want another option, you give your time to make it happen.

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Two questions:

  • do you admit that, comparing only its functionalities as an init system, systemd provides no benefits over alternatives?
  • what non-init functionalities does systemd provide, which are necessary and beats competition from other software that provides those features?

Sure, the alternative init systems don't provide non init functionalities, but other software probably does.

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
  1. no. Processes have a life cycle other than init. Fire and forget with bash scripts is backwards.

  2. I am no expert on this and could not do this answer justice. A quick search will provide a better and more detailed answer. That is if you are willing to consider that SystemD provides benefits. The way you wrote your question gives me vibes that you do not want to, so this debate would be fruitless.

If you're genuinely curious Benno Rice has a great talk on SystemD: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo&pp=2AHFBpACAQ%3D%3D

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 1 points 2 months ago

Not how I understood it. Rather, there are alternatives that have potential to be better than systemd, but systemd has the unfair advantage of receiving the funding and manpower.

If alternatives had equal manpower, they may have had better success than systemd.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. I like systemd. This guy is just bitter and adverse to change.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago

That's the real reason honestly.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago

I would go as far to say that it has been embraced

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure but that is most open source programs. It is not the hacker doing it in their spare time. The majority of open source devs are working for a company getting paid to program it. People have to eat.

[–] leopold@lemmy.kde.social 5 points 2 months ago

Uh, no. Not the majority. Not by a long shot.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -3 points 2 months ago

And that it is better on many levels