I like SystemD. I’ve found it fairly simple to use one thing to do all the basics I want, instead of 20 different programs with different config locations etc.
It really isn’t. It feels fancy and like it does allsorts of clever stuff, but actually what you have is a massively over complex architecture, a non-deterministic (or perhaps a better term would be unpredictable) boot order, binary logging, excessively verbose configuration, and still some fundamental bugs in important daemons. You can fix almost all of that, but you shouldn’t have to. We had a solid, simple system before, now we have an over complex mess.
And everything it touches, it feels like it does differently just to be incompatible and extra, and like it goes out of its way to obfuscate everything to force you to use their programs to configure it rather than config files
Binary logging is some of the most asinine shit I’ve ever had to deal with on Linux (and yes, I know you can change it, but it being the default behavior is beyond absurd).
I’m with you on that, it’s massively over complex, intrudes into systems it has no place in, and has way too many bad design choices. The designers made the fundamental mistake of wanting it to do everything okish, rather than one thing well. The worst part is that pretty much everything people poibt to as benefits could have trivially been added to tools like sysvinit and rsyslogd.
It’s probably a lost cause, and I don’t think there are many of of us left who remember how to work with the tools that embody the “do one thing, well” philosophy, or how that led to stable, predictable, and easy to manage systems.
Just to mention it: I still don’t like Systemd.
I like SystemD. I’ve found it fairly simple to use one thing to do all the basics I want, instead of 20 different programs with different config locations etc.
This is fine, and one of the strong points of a diverse software ecosystem: Chose what works best for you.
It’s vastly superior to the systems it replaced
It really isn’t. It feels fancy and like it does allsorts of clever stuff, but actually what you have is a massively over complex architecture, a non-deterministic (or perhaps a better term would be unpredictable) boot order, binary logging, excessively verbose configuration, and still some fundamental bugs in important daemons. You can fix almost all of that, but you shouldn’t have to. We had a solid, simple system before, now we have an over complex mess.
And everything it touches, it feels like it does differently just to be incompatible and extra, and like it goes out of its way to obfuscate everything to force you to use their programs to configure it rather than config files
I notice a lot of the Linux community tends to dislike things that makes life easier for users.
Binary logging is some of the most asinine shit I’ve ever had to deal with on Linux (and yes, I know you can change it, but it being the default behavior is beyond absurd).
I’m with you on that, it’s massively over complex, intrudes into systems it has no place in, and has way too many bad design choices. The designers made the fundamental mistake of wanting it to do everything okish, rather than one thing well. The worst part is that pretty much everything people poibt to as benefits could have trivially been added to tools like sysvinit and rsyslogd.
It’s probably a lost cause, and I don’t think there are many of of us left who remember how to work with the tools that embody the “do one thing, well” philosophy, or how that led to stable, predictable, and easy to manage systems.
It’s amazing that this is now a downvoted opinion.
The overall concept seemed fine, but it’s mired in some truly dogshit design decisions.