β€œSystemd is a nice operating system, too bad it lacks a decent init system.”

-Unknown

@hund honest question from someone who only picked up Linux again four months ago after using it up until circa 2005, why is everyone making such a big deal about systemd?

I can't detect any sort of issues related to systemd on my distro, and it feels kind of simple to use really.

@kungtotte The quote sums it up pretty good. It's basically its own OS, which goes against the whole idea of Linux distributions being modular where you are in control. And something that triggers me really bad is binary logs.. What where they thinking?

@hund @kungtotte Actually... it is modular and contains of multiple (60+) binaries. I don't remember exactly but I think 3 or if it was 5 are mandatory... every thing else is optionally. BSD forked a part of it for instance. There is a minimal build for those inclined to use that. It has support for non-binary logs.

systemd is not just an init... It updates old tools to be more modern. Anyone could fork any of the 60+ binaries and make their own version.

@shellkr @hund so... What is more modern then?

runit contains 9 binaries and does init and process supervision. What does systemd buy you on top of that?

Are the tools better or is it another case of rewriting for the sake of rewriting?

Follow

@kungtotte @hund It unifies and simplifies the tools used. They all talk "the same language" in a way. It give you stuff like cgroups e.t.c.. and can thus contain daemons that fork. Something I think Runit can't. There was also something else it couldn't but don't remember now.

Runit is in other ways also a proof that a modernization was needed.

So Runit may be enough on your personal machine but not on bigger server infrastructure.

Β· Web Β· 0 Β· 0 Β· 1
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!