you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 child)

People keep mentioning this. It's not actually a problem

It's not even a good philosophy anymore (although, not actually even sure where this statement originated). The Linux kernel does more than 1 thing. So does Gnome, KDE, etc.

The old init scripts did "one thing", but, because they did too little, the scripts were difficult to write, there were issues like race conditions, etc.

Anyone who ever wrote a SysV script would tell you what an absolute nightmare they were.. Whereas, SystemD, even more complex ones which depend on a lot of factors are now easy (and only a few lines).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

    systemd init scripts are more ergonomic than sysvinit scripts. I agree.

    Does systemd work? Yes. Can I live with it? Yes. I've embraced it since it became a de facto standard.

    The thing I somewhat dislike is that you cannot easily replace individual systemd components. The systemd-logind and systemd-journald for example have to be compiled from the exact same systemd version (e.g. both v234). There are way more gotchas like that if you try to replace them for non-systemd alternatives.

    If you're solely interested in having a working OS then it's all good. If you like to tinker and learn, and want to fully embrace Unix modularity mindset then systemd made your life a little more difficult in that aspect.

    Also I'm glad that distributions like Void Linux, Guix or Devuan from this post title exist that try another approach. I hope one day I'll have enough time to daily drive them!

  • source
  • parent