Okay, so I just spent a huge amount of time reading correspondence from Poettering(systemd dev) to the debian team about a single tiny little script in systemd.

Why is systemd a thing? Their scripts make things endlessly complex. Little scripts double in size. Tiny C modules triple in size, just to account for the complexity of systemd.

What ever happened to the Unix Philosophy?

@poetgrant systemd exists because what came before it was even more terrible in many ways, despite the propaganda, consolekit was unmaintained, each package had their own spaghetti shell script instead of a uniform service file etc.

systemd's far from perfect, but looking at sysvinit with rose tinted glasses doesn't help either.

@MatejLach I think far from perfect is an understatement. The conflicts it has with kernel default by design just drive me completely nuts.

@poetgrant @MatejLach not using Slackware anymore? Systemd is a non issue

@tramtrist @MatejLach oh no I am, but I have Debian on my big machine and keep running into errors and recently found out that the errors are happening because of conflicts between kernel defaults and systemd defaults.

@poetgrant

Interesting, am on Arch, which was pretty much the first distro to adopt systemd, so it's possible it's been integrated better, but I have no problems with systemd.

I did in fact had many problems with sysvinit, where the disorganized patchwork of individual scripts with slightly different capabilities for each made these problems hard and time consuming to debug.

I don't know what 'conflicts with kernel defaults' is supposed to mean, but I don't suffer from them.

@tramtrist

@poetgrant

I also operate several servers with systemd without issues.

Am slightly bothered by people who when they see a problem automatically seem to blame it on systemd itself, rather than perhaps their config, distro defaults, the flags it is compiled with in the repos etc. Seems a bit like working backward from a conclusion.

As for "the Unix philosophy" argument, I don't buy it. Some of it was due to technical limitations of the hardware in the 70s.

@tramtrist

Follow

@poetgrant

C is also technically the UNIX philosophy, yet there were many safer, better designed languages even at the time and now especially. Just because something has been around a long time doesn't mean it is the best. That's a surprisingly conservative stance when it comes to technology. Rust, Pony etc. are showing that low level systems programming could do a lot better than C, why not apply the same to the rest of the ecosystem?

@tramtrist

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Matej Lach's mastodon

Hi there! I am a free software developer. I enjoy working on useful software, as well as advocating for software freedom and the use of open standards, promoting data ownership, decentralization and privacy. If this is important to you, I may be worth following. If you like Go, Rust, or Swift, it may be worth following me as well. Besides computing, I enjoy metal, a good read and occasionally some gaming, (not much time for that these days).