systemd cat and GNU cat hugging a Linux cat.
Why should I not use systemd?
Contrarianism
Perfectly legitimate reason to do/ not do anything
/s
I disagree.
When you want to feel special but not enough to go to the effort of using FreeBSD
I already am special enough, my mom said so
because the over 70 different binaries of systemd are "not modular" because they are designed to work together. What makes a monolith is, apparently, the name of the overarching project, not it being a single binary (which again, it's not)
If I cared about modularity I'd use something like Hurd, but i actually need to get shit done
When you're not using your computer
Void, because it works really well on my super low-resource chromebook!
any advice for trying void? Ive heard good things but never really gave it a chance.
The gui installer was roughly about as simple as any other distro I've tried, and stuff generally seemed to work out of the box. There are more packages than one might expect from such a small distro too. Not sure I have any advice specific to Void really, although getting a custom bootloader onto a Chromebook was certainly a trip lol
As a user, why should I care whether the distro I use uses systemd? I use Mint and I don't remember having to interact with that kind of low-level nonsense. The distro maintainers can use whatever reasoning they want to pick these details.
Tribalism exists in every circle, perhaps moreso in tech circles. Ironically anyone who hates on a distro could just switch, or build their own distro if they were so inclined, but it's often the hating that people participate more in than using their system. Use what works for you, and if it no longer works for you use something else.
If you are just a user, in that a computer is just a tool you use, then you're right, there's comparatively little reason to be concerened or even know about the underlying details of the system. If you go further and start making changes to your system, or even building more complex systems, over time you will find yourself forming quite firm opinions about various parts of the underlying system, especially if you've had experience with other options.
So the old init.d system was better? Come on people, let's stop infighting. I have zero preference on init systems. You know why? Because they're just plumbing. Stop this nonsense. Do I click on an init system? Do I use the init system to check my email? Or play games? No. I know poettering can be controversial, but let's just move on. Run freebsd if you're so butt hurt.
Yeah, on a desktop I don't really mind whatever*. On a server however, I think systemd is great and I wouldn't want to miss it anymore.
* except Debian's frankenstein systemd + sysvinit combination. Burn it
"systemd is the worst implementation of init, except all those other inits that have been tried from time to time" -Churchill, if he had been a nerd
Probably Artix, because it's like Arch, and I use Arch btw
Scans room
Windows 11.
An hour in and no mention of Slackware yet?
Alpine.
Have used crux but using low end / old hardware results in almost permanent building software.
Since you asked for OS and not Linux: OpenBSD and FreeBSD are beautiful systems w/o systemd. I would switch in a heartbeat if I wouldn't need Linux for work reasons.
This feels like an "I would switch to Linux if I didn't need Windows for work" comment from another universe.
Debian, installed without systemd as per the wiki. So far I've not hit any issues, whilst I've recently ended up diving through both kernel and systemd code to find the root cause of an issue I was hitting on one server. I could have just bodged past it, but I wanted to actually understand what the issue was, and what else it was going to affect.
Maybe a stupid question, but is the thing you did fundamentally different from Devuan?
Honestly, I'm not sure, I was looking at Devuan, but then noticed that Debian supported sysvinit natively so I went that route instead. I figure that sticking to the source distro was going to give me fewer headaches, and so far it's been plain sailing.
systemd is fine. The only people I've ever heard complain about it are lonely neckbeards pretending like their opinion somehow matters.
I've used Debian as a server system since it was using init.d. And do you know what I found? systemd is easier. And the fact that Debian of all distros decided to use it says a lot.
System service managers like systemd, OpenRC, runit, or SysVinit often come down to user preference. While these systems are crucial for initializing and managing services on servers, where uptime, resource allocation, and specific daemon behaviors are important, their impact on a typical desktop or laptop is generally minimal.
For most personal devices, the primary functions of a service manager occur largely out of sight. As long as the system boots reliably and applications run smoothly, the underlying service manager rarely registers as a significant factor in the daily user experience.
For many, including myself, systemd simply works without much fuss. My choice to stick with it isn't due to strong conviction or deep technical analysis, but rather the simple fact that I've rarely, if ever, had to interact with it directly. For my personal desktop and laptop, it reliably handles booting, service management, and shutdown in the background. If it's not broken and isn't hindering my daily computing, there's no compelling reason to explore alternatives.
I suppose that would be Android, since that's the only non systemd OS I use.
Gentoo with OpenRC
I don't care about the init system, however i do love void mainly because of the package manager.
I have to say as someone who uses NixOS I love systemd, because it makes a lot of things very easy. For example hardening services ( systemd-analyze security) or replacing cron (system timer).
Normie here, what's wrong with systemd?
Some people think it handles too many low-level systems. It's a valid concern because if systemd itself were to become compromised (like Xz Utils was) or a serious bug was introduced, all of the userland processes would be affected. People who are stuck in the 90s and think that the Unix philosophy is still relevant will also point out that it's a needlessly complex software suite and we should all go back to writing initscripts in bash.
Red Hat, the owner of systemd, has also had its fair share of controversies. It's a company that many distrust.
Ultimately, those whose opinion mattered the most decided that systemd's benefits outweigh the risks and drawbacks. Debian held a vote to determine the project's future regarding init systems. Arch Linux replaced initscripts because systemd was simply better, and replicating and maintaining its features (like starting services once their dependencies are running) with initscripts would've been unjustifiably complicated.
What's wrong with systemd?
All I hear about it is that it doesn't follow the Unix philosophy of a program should do one thing and do it well. And while it does seem quite large and do a lot of things, out of all the times I have broken my system, systemd has never been to blame.
Edit: deleted duplicate comment.
It tries to do everything.
Think of a thing you want to do in Linux and there is a systemd plugin for it. It’s not the unix way
Wait until you learn about the Linux kernel and the plethora of modules and patches
Artix with openrc
Void Linux, although I use NixOS nowadays.
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.