systemd according to Luke Smith

[richb]

I get the feeling that you do modify your system quite a bit. I do not. I will share my experiences as time passes if i do get in trouble.

[dreamer]

This discussion will never end because he clearly doesn't understand what's wrong with systemd. It's not a question of technology. It's a question of monopolization, centralization and tech lock-in. You can't just switch systemd components for alternatives, because it hasn't been designed to allow for that.

I haven't had any problems with systemd in Xubuntu 19.04 for more than 24 hours. What does that prove? I didn't have any problems with Upstart for more than 8 years and I didn't have any problems with sysvinint for more than 2 years. How to create a problem-free init for desktop users has already been solved.

Systemd is Red Hat's way to standardize and gain control and that can make perfect sense in an enterprise environment. What if "competitors" like Suse and Canonical use your technology? Then you have a competitive advantage, because you decide how Linux will evolve and they can't do anything but follow your lead.

Without knowing the details I don't think comparing systemd to svchost.exe is far-fetched. Although systemd consists of many binaries it has to be treated as one binary and the only way to escape is to run something else as PID1. You can compile your own kernel, but it's not like anyone is going to compile their own version of systemd and replace the original systemd in their distro. So with systemd you have to accept the version your distro gives you or do what antiX/MX Linux did and remove it from PID1. So in that respect systemd is more monolithic than the Linux kernel, because many people compile their own kernels, but with systemd it's hard to change it in a meaningful way (get rid of binary logs for example).

I agree that there is no reason to get upset over systemd if you accept that desktop Linux is an enterprise product given to you by Red Hat. If you are more idealistic like I am and think that desktop Linux (and desktop Linux applications) should be engineered in a more tech agnostic and Unix way then systemd is basically like using a top-down system like Windows. It's open source, but it's also more than a million lines of interconnected code so I doubt anyone outside the systemd developer circle really tries to understand the code. Except the NSA guys of course because they are paid to understand systemd and everything else and maybe contribute a line or to. Poettering actually stated that it is important to keep three-letter-agencies happy. He is working for Red Hat and Red Hat is a big defense contractor so I assume Red Hat doesn't want to anger the guys working for US intelligence.

To be honest I don't have a problem with backdoors in software (I use Windows from time to time), because there are many ways for intelligence agencies to track you even if you use 100 % backdoor-free software (which probably doesn't exist because a security bug is a potential backdoor). But I do have a problem with systemd pushing out other players from desktop Linux and establishing itself as a mandatory component for desktop Linux. I never liked the idea that the alternative to Windows is another top-down product called Red Hat Linux (in all its variations).

[rasat]

The introduction of systemd stopped the learning experience in Linux what many distros were proud about when comparing with Windows. Learning was not about what the apps do but being able to know and config inside the system. One of the beauty was to write your own bash scripts in init.d. Example, this how KNOPPIX made the first live CD. If systemd had been in beginning of Linux, who-knows, this feature may not have been today (not been discovered). Before systemd It was said, Windows creates "illiterate" computer users. Can this also be said about systemd?

[timkb4cq]

Luke was mostly justifying the idea of systemd rather than its implementation (and he said that pretty explicitly).
The most profound thing he said in the talk was that if they had created APIs for managing these tasks first there wouldn't be the sort of strong negative reactions there were (and still are).

If they had done that, then systemd wouldn't have to be at PID1 to use any of the other bits of it through defined APIs and I would be a lot happier with the project.

But that's also not the way code hackers usually start projects. And once you have something that works in place you don't tear it apart to create APIs between the bits unless you really, really have to.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or hate Mr. Poettering or even disagree with the concept of a system manager to dislike the implementation that now exists. I don't think systemd is a Red Hat plot, nor an NSA one.

I haven't used systemd much - just on the leased VPNs. And the only problems I have ever had with it were when trying to add systemd service files to small programs without them so I wouldn't have to manually start and background them. I would follow all the steps, read all the guides that worked for others with no results. The service won't start. So I start it manually and background it.
A week later I find that systemd has finally deigned to notice it and it is now running as a systemd service instead of under my user and the commands that refused to work before now do.
In another case it never worked.

Now this can't be a common problem with systemd or debian packages that install services would frequently fail, and that's not the case. But I couldn't diagnose why things wouldn't work, nor why they started to.

I hate unpredictable systems.

[bobbee]

There are no shortage of corporations and agencies that want into everyone's computer.

Cellphones are being tracked and censored, the big techs all have their invasive ToS. And now MS Office is preventing people from typing select words and phrases into a word processor.

I have heard that IBM has bought shares into Canonical.

Even with the minuscule market-base that linux has, they will not leave that alone.

So at least for me, I share that concern with others.

[turtlebay777]

Would it help any for basic versions of the distro to be made available with just a means of accessing Package Manager so we get just a bare bones distro that we can add, or not, the programs we want rather than having suites like Libra Office, etc pre-installed? For me I can count the number of times I use LO Writer per year on the thumbs of one hand and I never use any of the other pre-installd LO offerings.

[skidoo]

In the video, the presenter claims "never met a systemd detractor who can articulate what, specifically..."

sorted: the topmost links are intended as "easy reading", the last is the most "in depth"
15-logical-fallacies
persuasive-reasoning-and-fallacies
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy::Fallacies

Really? The presenter has never visited the following pages, has never met anyone who has done so and can, quite clearly, articulate dozens of specific problematic systemd characteristics // anti-features...

Arguments_against_systemd
and
List_of_articles_critical_of_systemd

Regardless of the presenter's agenda for swaying the hearts n minds of bobbleheads... in the absence of critical thinking skills, we're doomed.

[vlvtelvis]

I've been using Debian since Sarge, nearly 15 years by now. In the past year I switched my laptops over to MX from Xubuntu and love it.

I was predisposed to dislike systemd when it came out but it really does make so many things so much easier. It's intuitive and well engineered, easy to debug, and contrary to popular belief, entirely modular. When the controversy around switching the init system in Debian started getting really heated I messed around with various configurations of it in a Gentoo VM for a couple months until I was reasonably sure it was nothing too evil. I kept trying to find things wrong with it and other than philosophical problems I just couldn't.

Crap like insecure language specific package managers (looking at you npm) and the idea that snap and flatpack should replace traditional Linux file managers are much bigger problem, IMHO.

[vlvtelvis]

Would it help any for basic versions of the distro to be made available with just a means of accessing Package Manager so we get just a bare bones distro that we can add, or not, the programs we want rather than having suites like Libra Office, etc pre-installed? For me I can count the number of times I use LO Writer per year on the thumbs of one hand and I never use any of the other pre-installd LO offerings.

The definition of a Linux distro is an integrated suite of software made to be used together. It's better to have it on the install image and not need than to have people trying to download it from random web sites. Also, countries with inexpensive, unmetered broadband are still in the minority.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

debugging and fixing can be a horror show

I find debugging with systemd to be much easier because of the journal (which can even be read from a machine which is not running systemd by using the strings(1) command).

Although systemd consists of many binaries it has to be treated as one binary and the only way to escape is to run something else as PID1.

That's just nonsense: my Debian buster system doesn't use systemd-networkd or systemd-resolved until I enable the services and I can't run systemd-nspawn until I install the systemd-container package.

And as I already mentioned any unwanted unit files can be disabled or masked, there is no need to recompile the systemd package at all.

One of the beauty was to write your own bash scripts in init.d

And one of the beauties of systemd is that you don't have to learn how to script to get services running to your liking.

I couldn't diagnose why things wouldn't work, nor why they started to.

The systemd journal is great for that, guide here:

https://www.digitalocean.com/community/ ... stemd-logs

Would it help any for basic versions of the distro to be made available with just a means of accessing Package Manager so we get just a bare bones distro that we can add, or not, the programs we want rather than having suites like Libra Office, etc pre-installed?

The Debian netinstall ISO image does just that if you de-select all of the desktops.

Arch & Alpine Linux both install minimal systems by default.

IThe presenter has never visited the following pages

Yeah, the "guides" on your linked site for removing systemd from Debian will break your box so I'm not sure anybody should trust anything there.