Linux

48077 readers

884 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

132

Is Systemd that bad afterall? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Nuuskis@sopuli.xyz to c/linux@lemmy.ml

175 comments fedilink hide all child comments

SystemD is blamed for long boot times and being heavy and bloated on resources. I tried OpenRC and Runit on real hardware (Ryzen 5000-series laptop) for week each and saw only 1 second faster boot time.

I'm old enough to remember plymouth.service (graphical image) being the most slowest service on boot in Ubuntu 16.04 and 18.04. But I don't see that as an issue anymore. I don't have a graphical systemD boot on my Arch but I installed Fedora Sericea and it actually boots faster than my Arch despite the plymouth (or whatever they call it nowadays).

My 2 questions:

Is the current SystemD rant derived from years ago (while they've improved a lot)?
Should Linux community rant about bigger problems such as Wayland related things not ready for current needs of normies?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] l3mming@lemmy.fmhy.ml -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, no, and that's the whole problem; Systemd removed choice, and it was designed to do so. That is why there is so much anger. It is bad software design, by design. It flies in the face of the core linux principles, all in the name of homogenising the linux ecosystem, and you know exactly which big corporations benefit from that.

The simple fact is: today, if I want to run a mainstream distro without Systemd, I cannot. Its cancerous tentacles run so deep that decoupling it from a mainstream distro, and keeping it decoupled, is a full time job.

Instead I have no choice but to run a smaller, less featured, less secure and less funded alternative.

Full credit to Devuan, MxLinux, Artix, and the other united underdogs.

Fuck you Redhat/IBM and your proxy evil-doer Lennart.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Lets be perfectly honest. The reason systemd is so popular is because the init script based predecessors were so bad in so many ways. Not only did you have to reimplement the same things over and over in every script, the behaviour of your script also depended on environment variables in your environment while you started a service and other things that leaked into the script.

Would an init system have to do as much as systemd does to fix those issues? No. Are the existing alternatives really, really bad? Yes.