●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
Post
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
| Reply
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Poettering will also continue to remain deeply involved in the systemd ecosystem.
I therefore trust that it will continue to be shit.
bytwinirondrives ( 10502753 ) writes:
for people hacking together their own systems I'd admit that systemd does nothing for that. But organizational level mass deployed systems are pretty much barred from linux without something filling that role. then I think systemd was an idea put forward around the same time io_uring was which maybe possibly was the beginning of a compliant solution filling the systemd role. my opinion is io_uring actually increased the attack surface of linux systems. would that have been different if systemd never existe
byShaitan ( 22585 ) writes:
Overrated. Prior to systemd Linux administrators famously admin'd thousands of systems vs tens in the windows world. That text/file/directory-based system combined with all the text-mangling power tools in linux, the shell, and perl... nothing compares.
It actually becomes much easier to work with configuration management tools when they are managing the state of text files as the Linux gods intended.
bydskoll ( 99328 ) writes:
Systemd units are plain text files, you know.
I honestly don't understand the visceral hate for systemd. I've been using UNIX since 1989 and Linux since 1994, so I have plenty of experience with old ways of doing things.
Systemd, at least in my experience, just works and writing systemd unit files is easier than writing sysvinit scripts. So when Debian switched to it, it was fine. I adapted.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
I honestly don't understand the visceral hate for systemd.
It is the antithesis of the Unix way. This has been argued back and forth all along, and if you don't agree I won't try to convince you here.
Systemd, at least in my experience, just works and writing systemd unit files is easier than writing sysvinit scripts. So when Debian switched to it, it was fine. I adapted.
The problem with systemd and unit scripts is that they cannot do all the things that a script can do, so you often wind up using a script anyway. In that case you have really not made things any simpler than the usual case. Meanwhile you've added a whole lot of complexity which is largely unnecessary, some of which is utterly dependent on other parts so it is difficult
bydskoll ( 99328 ) writes:
Appealing to "the UNIX way" is just silly. UNIX has been around for over 50 years, and it evolves as people figure out better ways to do things.
The problem with systemd and unit scripts is that they cannot do all the things that a script can do, so you often wind up using a script anyway.
I would say: very rarely, not often. Looking at the units on my machine, none of them uses an auxiliary script to start or stop a service.
byArchieBunker ( 132337 ) writes:
What was the point of the journal log system? We had stable tools for decades for manipulating and managing text logs. So systemd made the logs binary and then re-invented all the same tools but slightly different. Same as with ifconfig. Worked great for decades and now it’s replaced with “ip” and a different syntax. What was gained?
byBig Hairy Gorilla ( 9839972 ) writes:
What is gained, isn't for you silly. It's there to create vendor lock in.
Write all your code to be dependent on Systemd and you'll never go anywhere, because it is too expensive to even considering changing. Could I rent you a few consultants? says IBM.
Redhat, the Microsoft of Linux.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
bydskoll ( 99328 ) writes:
When every Linux distro that matters is using systemd, it's not much of a lock-in.
And guess what? I distribute email-filtering software that runs on a wide variety of UNIX systems. I include sysvinit scripts for systems that use that, and systemd units for ones that use systemd. There's no lock-in.
byBig Hairy Gorilla ( 9839972 ) writes:
Thanks for the categorically broad statements of your opinion stated as a fact.
"Every distro that matters?"
Sooo. Ubuntu and Redhat?
Vendor lock in is assured if you put critical systems on them. BECAUSE of proprietary extensions, of which, systemd could be considered one of them.
The old IBM/Microsoft playbook embrace, extend, extinguish.
Jesus, I wrote COBOL programs for the Treasury Board, here in capital city, about 100 years ago with IBM Report Writer. They paid thru the nose for the license, and as a gree
byBlueLightning ( 442320 ) writes:
Vendor lock-in, to just about any vendor you could choose? You don't even need a vendor at all if you don't want one - just use Debian, or Fedora, or...
●r current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...