Rage against the systemd 'machine'

[richb]

Android is a closed system, totally under the control of Google, and a contributor to their billions both directly and indirectly.

I do not get what that has to do with systemd.

[GuiGuy]

I do not get what that has to do with systemd.

Nothing really, just an analogy (maybe not a good one).

Edit: Sorry I've taken the thread off topic. Rich, please delete my offending post and your replies.

Edit2: In fact I would be happy to see all posts from #38 to #45 deleted.

[manyroads]

Don't hijack the thread kids.... Create a rage against Google Thread if you want one.

[richb]

Don't hijack the thread kids.... Create a rage against Google Thread if you want one.

In defense of GuiGuy, not a hijack. He was using it is an analogy. And I will not rage against systemd as I am agnostic about it. Should I stsrt an agnostic about systemd thread? It would not be very interesting.

[manyroads]

Agnostic threads, can't say I care one way or the other....

[dreamer]

What is/was the motive of systemd developers. I do not mean the technical or philosophical motive, but the more nefarious motive that seems to be a popular narrative. I simply ask as I do not know and not as argumentative.

They are trying to make Gnu/Linux their own private monopoly, just like Google with Android.

Yes and since systemd is more of a system layer than an init they have incredible power to affect the whole system. Do you want to be in the hands of Microsof... sorry systemd developers? A few developers hijacked Linux (with the help of corporate backing). Hijacked not in an absolute sense, but in a practical sense.

Systemd is beyond the scope of small players, it just descends on them from above. Now more than 1,2 million LOC. The kernel might be bigger but is more manageable and occupies a clearly defined space.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page= ... .2-Million

Google and get mostly opinion. To what end are they trying to make Linux their own private monopoly?

We don't know what their motive is. I personally like to point to "Linux 10" as the end goal, but that's just my personal take. Basically systemd, Wayland, Gnome, GTK3/4/5, only CSD support on Wayland, elimination of systray etc. GTK/Gnome developers don't shy away from telling us what the future should look like. Linux 10 will be the Linux equivalent of Windows 10. A fast-moving platform mainly for enterprise use and application developers have to constantly update their apps to keep pace with the platform. Windows 10 will likely be better in this regard now that Win32 has been elevated to "first class citizen" again.

I think there will be a split at some point where non-corporate distros have to work together to avoid getting sucked into "Linux 10". Linux Mint is in an interesting position. They have adopted systemd and GTK3 meaning Cinnamon follows GTK3 development, but apart from that Mint is pretty traditional. Will further updates to GTK allow for a traditional desktop environment? If GTK4 needs to be forked Linux Mint might be the ones that have to do it. I read that GTK devs have big plans for the GTK4 cycle (a ton of changes), but that can be FUD of course. In my dreams I wish someone forks GTK2. Trinity still uses Qt3 so it's not impossible. I'm thinking that most security holes in GTK2 should have been found by now, but I have no idea.

I'd say the motivation is control. If you want to enjoy applications running on Linux you have to adopt at least systemd and GTK for a good out of the box experience (unless distro devs work in the opposite direction). It will be harder for the Linux 10 pushers to push Wayland and Gnome, but they are trying, just look at Debian.

Who doesn't want to control a platform with great potential such as Linux?
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Systemd is just too dangerous in my opinion; turning Linux into an open source version of Windows, but with the same complexity.

[richb]

Clearly this is an aptly named topic.

[timkb4cq]

They are trying to make Linux their own private monopoly, just like Google with Android.

To be fair, I don't think that was the basis for systemd nor the continuing impetus for the systemd devs.
Poettering looked at Apple's launchd and thought "Hey, wouldn't it be better if processes in Linux could be centrally tracked and managed as well as Apple does it?" And he, with some help, wrote it. That's the open source way. Build a better mousetrap, or reinvent the wheel.
Upstart wasn't working quite as well as sysvinit. Few distros were using runit or openrc, and sysvinit lost its maintainer. Distros were rolling their own sysvinit patches when necessary.
So the door was open. Systemd works well enough (if you just do the expected things), is actively developed, and gives you cool new tools to manage processes. Of course distros used it. Of course those who loved the new tools wrote software depending on them.

That doesn't mean the implementation of systemd is great - it's definitely flawed. If it did all the things it does now but had actually stayed modular so you could use just the pieces you wanted we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But it is new & useful so (Oooh, shiny!) it caught on.

That's the way change happens in complex systems. After watching various communities & groups change over the years, it's almost never a conspiracy or evil plan that changes things.

I'd rather not have systemd in PID1. It doesn't follow the Unix philosophy. But I was an adult before there were home computers. To most coders these days that's ancient history that no longer applies. They're following the new stuff.

I don't believe either systemd or its developers are evil or are trying to take over even if other developers are making it harder to avoid. They're just using the tools in libraries that they already have in their machines. One should expect that they would.

[rasat]

That doesn't mean the implementation of systemd is great - it's definitely flawed. If it did all the things it does now but had actually stayed modular so you could use just the pieces you wanted we wouldn't be having this discussion.

True.... also at end of day, what users have to deal with everyday, speed and respond of a system. Main reasons why they go for faster hardware each time. As a counter step, able to use older hardware, lightweight DE and WM became popular, such as Xfce. Not the intention of systemd, by taking over init, the speed and respond was put down again. Hardware manufactures loves systemd. :)

How does it sound: "Don't go hardware, go SysVinit".

[sunrat]

This sysv v systemd stuff is really getting silly. It's like football, Man United are the best and Arsenal are all idiots (or vice versa depending on your preference).
As a user of both in several distros, they both work well and have identical speed and response. I do like journalctl better than scratching through log files though.