What's wrong with systemd /g/?

systemdeez nuts!

HAH

gottem, gottem

Literally nothing, people are just autistic fucks. It does slightly more than an init system needs to but it's a great and user friendly init system, something linux has really been lacking in.
>inb4 muh unix philosophy

>>56133657
If it focused on doing what it should, nothing.

But it's doing way too much unrelated bullshit and it's infecting all the software working with it.

I have to admit I'm using some of the DBus signals it sends in my own software, thus making it not work on systems without SystemD.

>>56133947
>systems without SystemD
So ancient installs and gentoo?

File: 1468629176611.png (109KB, 717x642px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 717x642px

>>56133657
The term you are looking for is, The Systemd OS.

>>56133979
BSDs and other POSIX compliant systems.

File: systemd.gif (4MB, 426x284px)

4MB, 426x284px

>>56133979
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#Free.2FOpen_Source_Operating_systems_without_systemd_in_the_default_installation

>>56133657
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd
http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/09/23/end-of-linux/

Nothing is wrong with it.

The people that hate it are just pissed off that they didn't make something better than sysv first.

>>56133707
GRATATA

There's little wrong with systemd other than it works in a way is incompatible with the unix way and is more intrusive when compared to othere systems.

But it works in the way it was designed for what it was meant to do (and then some).

>>56134145
There's nothing wrong with SystemV init. systemd was pushed solely due to politics and Poettercuck's scheming rather than on merit. It's objectively bad and the few things it improves are vastly outweighed by all it does wrong.

It's either the "embrace, extend, extinguish" method being applied to Linux, or RedHat trying to get an iron grip on the whole (if possible) ecosystem, or both.

File: 1379087314121.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>56134243

>>56134243
I never said there was anything wrong with SysV its just old and systemd is faster, better supported, more modular, and has easier to use tools for everything.

>>56134292
>"its just old"
>it's old therefore it must go reeee

The human species is "old" too, should we all kill ourselves because of that?

>>56134328
Nothing wrong with upgrading. Don't get so pissy switching from SysV isn't like suicide.

>>56134243
>There's nothing wrong with SystemV init
Anon, do you know why we need busybox in ramdisk ?

>>56134231
lennart has no fucking clue what he is doing, check link 2 posts up. He makes excuses for things he does not understand and makes this require systemd or they dont function

>>56134365
Problem is that systemd isn't objectively good, it's as simple as that. Look at >>56134054's links for some good argumentation (but I suspect you just want to believe that choosing systemd is the right thing to do and don't want to be confronted with information proving the contrary).

>>56134425
No I understand the argument and I realize that Poettering is a fucking inflexible dickhead that refuses to fix systemd.

I'm saying in spite of that its still way way way better than systemv.

>>56134421
No, why

>>56134465
Because you don't have systemd with a rescue shell.

>>56134421
Because sysv init doesn't work during early boot.

But the busybox init aren't perfect either.
eg, when mounting disk:
You'll need busybox to wait for disk ready (by "sleep"-ing) and hopefully when sleep timeout, disk will be ready.
It's unreliable and you'll need to increase the sleep value manually if you use slow usb disk.

Systemd work-around by using hook.
load module -> device init -> device ready -> trigger systemd service.

>>56133979
devuan

>>56134921
guzentight