2026-10-27 08:49 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@Kajika@lemmy.ml 2026-10-27 09:21
As a user you probably don’t know, and maybe don’t care. This is more for developers, technology is not magic, vendor/technology-locking can be problematic though. It’s not like systemd was made by bad people with bad intention. You may have heard of X11 too. The list could go on, there is a bag amount of legacy in our technology, some would just keep it that way. But some argue for changes thus discussing (and criticizing) those legacy, why it fails on some points and what to do/build from that. So right now if you’re a desktop user, I don’t see why you would bother indeed. This discussion are still interesting to some devs, for instance here I learned about dinit, and it’s code is damn small and clean, hence it was informative and I will definitely try it.
-
@banana_pie@piefed.zip 2026-10-27 13:26
On desktop systemd is only now getting used for user services. I don’t care that much about it either, but am not a sysadmin. One annoyance is long shutdown because of systemd or maybe thats youre holding it wrong type of problem…
-
@atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2026-10-27 16:59
The Unix principle is the most over-rated design principle ever. It’s sole purpose is to be dragged out when somebody doesn’t like your application. Notably the systemd haters don’t levy the same complaint about Wayland… It’s based on the idea of programs as “functions” that can be strung together like you often do with things like “cat /etc/passwd | grep user | tr ‘s/:/,/’” (cat put in there to trigger the right people). That’s a great philosophy for cli utilities. But it’s not universally applicable. The goal is not to make things tiny but to make them “the right size.” You wouldn’t want to run 30 different applications to do what GIMP does and you shouldn’t have to. And the idea of having dozens of viable replacements for different functions is not a Unix thing but pretty restricted to the Linux ecosystem. And it’s not like it was planned, it just happened because 12 people went out and wrote their own ntp daemons. There wasn’t really much benefit to it. “Oh boy, I can run a different ntpd… And half of them are partially implemented. Hooray?”
-
@corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2026-10-27 19:12
most of them citing the unix principle as the main argument. It’s like building codes. You don’t always know you need a smoke detector, but we have 6 in this apartment. People suggesting the Unix philosophy needs to prove itself have issues incorporating anyone else’s experience into their own. It’s okay, but watch for that oppositional disorder.
-
@Guiorgy@lemmy.ml 2026-10-28 08:33
The crux of the issue, at least as I understand it, is that traditionally you’d build the system components in a way that they were interchangeable bybdefining some standard-ish API. While you can interchange some Systemd components, since “ststemd-xyz” is just the umbrella name of the project as a whole, so some components are completely independent, the core ones can’t really easily be swapped, and it’s only getting worse, especially as systemd is starting to become a hatd requirement, a lot of people are rightfully feeling peeved. There’s a great talk made by a BSD sevrloper that admits the virtues of Systemd while bringing the downsides, so no blind hate, you can google for the video “The tragedy of systemd”.