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.
2014 called. It wants its controversy back.
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! 💯
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
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 “systemd 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
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.
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!
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).
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)
The gnu coreutils are amazing.
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’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.
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.
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 without other options, 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?
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.
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.
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.
There is no worse project in the Linux world than that.
This many times. The devs go out of their way to curb any attemp of customization outside their “guidelines”.
But what if you make my app look bad with your shitty theme and then somehow blame me for it?
here that fucks have their nest.
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
Idk. about the Linux idea and the freedom being at risk.
You’ve chosen another init system, they’ve chosen theirs -hopefully- for technical reasons.
As far as I see your choice and freedom is not constrained. You are free to mix and build whatever suits your needs.
A few years ago you could have said þe same þing about PulseAudio. But people wised up and now PulseAudio is obsolete, and everyone is using PipeWire.
One could say the same of operating systems. We’re all free to use Linux or BSD, but Windows being so dominant means less support for non-Windows systems.
Idk. about the Linux idea and the freedom being at risk.
imagine this, you’re a windows user ready to make the jump, you’re looking at different distros and they’re all have a systemd init system.
you finally choose a distro and make the jump, you use ur os for a few months and you feel ready to explore the vast universe of different distros with different flavors, you had a great experience after all.
and then you switch to something like void Linux, technically able people will have no problem switching to this but someone who is used to the convince of systemd just because “it works” might just go back to what they’re comfortable with, this doesn’t encourage exploration and freedom of choice because systemd does everything for you and the apps you love and use might not be compatible with something other than systemd unless you heavily tweak things.
You’ve chosen another init system, they’ve chosen theirs -hopefully- for technical reasons.
Totally agree with you on this, not saying people shouldn’t choose their init system, they’re free to do so.
Again. Even exploration is choice.
Nobody owes you the experience you are mapping out here.
I didn’t say people have to explore, I know its a choice
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
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.
Dang! I just got Mullvad, and I’ve been considering migrating to Artix, so that’s good to know.
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
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.
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.
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.
what is the difference between the adoption of systemd and that of X or Wayland?
aren’t those equally “mainstream” and don’t they also leave almost no chance to have an alternative (especially for the average user)?
this is a genuine question because, while I know and understand the sentiment against systemd, I realized just now that in the 20 years I’ve been on Linux many things I’ve used were kinda against “freedom”.
AFAIK, neither X nor Wayland have ties to tech giants. Possibly more practically, X and Wayland both fulfil one purpose/need, whereas Systemd has some scope-creep going on, which feels a tad intentional.
I see.
the tech giant you mean is IBM I imagine?
Yeah, I mean IBM. It had and has ties to not-so-great governments, and I just can’t trust it.
Systemd has already won. So other init systems must adapt, and modify themselves to be compatible with systemd.
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.
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.
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?
xz exploited systemd’s bloated attack surface… Users of a sane init weren’t affected.
