• Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    11 months ago

    systemd is a FANTASTIC set of tools, well integrated into the environment, and allows powerful configurations to be set very easily. Anybody arguing for the “old ways” has never had to set up a complex network environment using an interfaces file and a million other configuration tools.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      8·
      11 months ago

      The debate isn’t even funny anymore, it ended completely IMO when Debian decided on systemd, despite heavy propaganda with wild promises about how amazing they planned to make upstart. Promises that were never gonna happen, and some of the problems they promised to solve, had been left unsolved by upstart developers for years. Some of them allegedly because they were basically impossible to solve in upstart, because the basic design concept is flawed, just like other init systems based on the System V legacy.

  • milkjug@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    11 months ago

    I have tried several times to find a convincing answer as to why systemd bad hur dur, but I could never find one that says precisely why. I’d love it if someone could ELI5 it for me.

      • milkjug@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        This is easily the most comprehensive and informative reply to the issue with systemd I’ve seen so far. Thank you for the response, I can see why their increasing dominance is alarming.

        I’m certainly not at liberty to pass judgment on whether it deserves its current reputation, since I barely know enough to make it work to my needs. But I would be most interested to see how things play out.

        • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          Imagine if SystemD incorporates some form of DRM to ensure “compatibility” and “authenticity”, like how Google is trying to control the Web and Android (if you have followed the recent news). And SystemD is based out of RedHat, which should be plenty alarming already

      • EddyBot@feddit.de
        1·
        11 months ago

        this comment shows how the word of mouth actually distorted the argument

        its not the linux philosophy but one sentence of the unix philosophy (linux is not unix)
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

        Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new “features”

        besides being over 40 years old at this point

        fun fact the linux kernel would actually not really fit this since it is an monolithic kernel

        • fogetaboutit@programming.dev
          2·
          11 months ago

          Ah sorry, unix not linux. I didnt think of that before, it seems so obvious that linux kernel isnt doing one thing well, it does everything ever, kind of well.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        4·
        11 months ago

        Back before AMD Radeon Open Source drivers became good, the best options were widely considered to be Intel for Open Source that worked, or Nvidia for performance with proprietary drivers. AMD was basically considered the worst option you could choose.

        Personally I have always used AMD anyway since 2005 on Linux, but that’s because I’m a somewhat extreme political user, and I don’t like Nvidia for multiple reasons. My wife however uses Nvidia, because she was less stubborn, and AMD worked poorly when she tried it.

        IMO AMD is the way superior choice on Linux today.

        • djsaskdja@reddthat.com
          3·
          11 months ago

          Yeah because they refuse to work with the open source community lol. Don’t care how great their stuff is if they’re borderline openly hostile towards Linux.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          3·
          11 months ago

          I don’t get why so many find it OK to tie their development to 1 vendor? I suspect CUDA will die off in favor of a more open and flexible option.