●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
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
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
byArrogant-Bastard ( 141720 ) writes:
A friendly amendment, if I might: it's the Unix way yes, but more important than that: it's the Software Tools way.
I capitalized that because it's a book title, and it's absolutely mandatory reading for everyone in this discussion and anyone developing software. It's such an important work that I make a point of re-reading it every year -- and each time, I learn something new.
But if I were to have the temerity to attempt to summarize it in one sentence, it would be this: a software tool should do o
bydskoll ( 99328 ) writes:
So when you say "we -- the people who've been working in this field for many decades", note that I have been developing software as a hobby since 1982 and professionally since 1990, and ran a software development company for 18 years. I think I'm likely as "seasoned" as anyone on Slashdot.
Second: If you say: "We considered it carefully, we debated it at length, and we rejected it.", then why is it that most Linux systems use systemd, Solaris uses smf, and Mac OS uses launchd, all of which are systemd-lik
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Second: If you say: "We considered it carefully, we debated it at length, and we rejected it.", then why is it that most Linux systems use systemd, Solaris uses smf, and Mac OS uses launchd, all of which are systemd-like things?
All of those things are reviled to various degrees.
sysvinit's only crimes were that it was slow and you had to write scripts. startpar solved the slow problem and scripts are an integral and fundamental feature of the OS, and avoiding them is missing the point. Init scripts are made with skeletons and boilerplate and just aren't that complicated anyway.
There have been Linux distributions which used the BSD init script system. It's just inferior to doing it the System V way, which is yet still basically the same thing as the BSD way — after all, it's only shell scripts being run in a predetermined order.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
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
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●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...