Ranting, especially on work made by the community* is bad, i know but my frustration comes because it has not be like that. systemd is bloat, madness …

Linux has improved on so many front, is better than ever but this pile of crap is threatening everything.

*systemd is IBM, so not really community, so it’s fine :)

  • 20gramsWrench@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    121·
    10 months ago

    how dare you criticize smystemD, I spent 20 years having to write startup scripts in assembly with a quill and feather and i can tell you that sistem_d is literally life changing, I stopped drinking an got out of prison ever since arch implemented it

    • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
      42·
      10 months ago

      Get out of the dark ages, real geeks use mechanical pencils! 😆

      SystemD is life-changing all right, just not in a good way. I keep fighting with it though because I really like Debian.

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        1·
        10 months ago

        Debian will happily use sysvinit. It’s easiest to just switch to it at install time, but you can do afterwards too: Init

        I’ve veen using it on desktops, laptops and servers without issue.

        The more people who switch, the clearer the message that this choice needs to be maintained.

        • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          I’ve used that before but generally just go with direct installations now instead of fighting it. However I have to wonder, if this is still a thing that actually works correctly in Debian, then why is Devuan a thing? There must be a difference in maintenance between them to justify the labor?

          • notabot@lemm.ee
            1·
            10 months ago

            I think Devuan split when it was still uncertain whether Debian would have init freedom. I’m running Xfce4, but I believe there were issues with Gnome being tightly tied to SystemD on Debian. It looks like that’s improving, but that Devuan has it all working. I guess the other issue is that Debian still don’t guarantee init freedom, whereas Devuan does.

            • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              It’s such a weird state of things. It seems like if the debian devs weren’t so bone-headed they would just accept that here are some people (some who are previous debian devs themselves) willing to put forth the effort to allow people to have a choice. Debian itself would thrive from the additional choices but instead they seem to want to dictate to everyone else what path is right for them, and that sounds an awful lot like the Ubuntu way.

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                1·
                10 months ago

                Oh absolutely. I resent SystemD more for the damage it did to the community than the boneheaded design decisions and buggy code.

                The ridiculous part is that the Debian devs are putting in some effort to keep multiple init systems working, they’re just not talking about it. As you say, people knowing about it would help Debian thrive.

                • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
                  2·
                  10 months ago

                  At this point I don’t think it really matter who thinks which system is better. The technical aspects are irrelevant as long as they work in a manner that completes the tasks. I certainly find no difference in boot times between systems that were loaded up with older releases pre-systemD, and systems that were freshly installed with systemD as the only init. Oddly I DID find one hell of a difference on a raspberry pi when I installed raspbian with systemD and it took nearly a minute and a half to boot, then I converted it to sysV and it booted in 15 seconds. These days most of the boot times I pay attention to, however, are on bare-metal servers which are now taking five freaking minutes just to get up to grub, so the difference of a minute is OS boot time is now completely meaningless.