The Tragedy of systemd

It’s interesting you say that? It runs completely counter to my experience coming from the “BSD-style” rc.d init Arch used to use, and migrating to systemd. Any specific issues? I didn’t see any. No offense. One factor may be that Arch prioritizes not patching upstream - helped save them from targeting here, and it doesn’t go overboard with default configs, which I’ve long appreciated. Not to distro-war, I’m very grateful for Debian. My background is finding Linux in the mid-00s and breaking many SuSE, Ubuntu, and one or two Debian systems before finding something I could understand, repair, and maintain in 2008 Arch. systemd accentuated its ability to stay relevant with enterprise Linux, made it even easier to package for, and has been a useful tool in diagnosing service issues and managing bad software for me. I’m not sure how often it’s posted here but Benno Rice formerly of FreeBSD Core Team has an excellent and amusing discussion of systemd’s technical merits. [this video]

> Turning Linux into Windows by replicating svchost.exe shouldn't be applauded by the Linux community. ... We've got Linux's PID 1 (for most distros) controlled by a MS employee, who replicated Windows' svchost.exe. And people are all excited? systemd was pretty consciously patterned after launchd, not svchost. The goal was, and for good reasons, to make Linux behave like a more integrated Unix-like that already existed: MacOS. Benno Rice has an excellent presentation on systemd that's worth watching through to the end; unlike most of the table-pounding (and "it's just svchost.exe!!" is exactly that), he provides what I think is a pretty fair--and, interestingly to me, a BSD-grounded--view as to where systemd is strong and is weak. [this video]

I think that the section on change at is great. The first 1500 seconds are about systemd any why it is and what it's trying to do, but that doesn't really get to the core of why I complain about it. [this video] Systemd is change. Massive change that's being forced on us by a twat. Unlike Linux, which was a kernel delivered by a twat but was take-it or leave-it, this is being forced on us. It's untrustworthy and threatening and unknown. In some cases it's an attack on our identity -- "the way you did it in the past is rubbish, do it this way". Clearly we are going to be defensive about it. This isn't unique to people who've used linux for the last 3 decades. Douglas Adams knew this 20 years ago: 1) everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal; 2) anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it; 3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.” His original article (in a newspaper - remember them?) is at [link] He mentions John Humphrys and his sneering view of this new fangled internet. Humphrys was (and still is) the bbc radio 4 breakfast presenter. At the same time Terry Wogan was the radio 2 breakfast presenter, a similar age (about 60 at the time). His attit

- Hardware support out of the box I can be given a work laptop, slap some Debian or derivative along with XFCE, and I know that most hardware will work out of the box without much fuss (including but not limited to: webcams, video cards, wireless/bluetooth, thunderbolt docking station). - Containers They're just very good. FreeBSD looks like it has most of the pieces to get containers going but it's not their priority to get that going. The people at Joyend did that, reimplementing the docker server APIs to manage underlying zones. I wonder why don't FreeBSD do something similar. - Reference documentation I like to use RHEL and derivatives (CentOS) when I can, and the reference documentation its so, so, so good , ample and complete. The FreeBSD reference guide is good, but not as thorough and/or up to date as the RHEL documentation. - systemd & NetworkManager They're rock solid, battle tested and well-thought. systemd is much more than init and does a lot of system management, stuff that previously was simply not being done by anything else. BSDs lack that completely -- see [this video]

I like what Benno Rice said[1] concerning a third "system" layer other than kernel and userspace. Systemd tries to fill that space entirely by providing a suite of tools that integrate well with another. But you are not forced to use these all of these, you're not forced to use resolved over resolvconf. > It should only do one thing well. I know this is a popular principle that some believe to be part of the unix philosophy. But an OS should also be coherent. Some tools can do their own thing and be independent from the rest of the system. But I think this works best for simple userland tools, not tightly integrated system services. In any case I really like resolved. [1]: [this video]