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?
linux is also about choice, so it doesn’t matter if something is bad for you. you can use a different alternative or even make/fork one.
This is the first top-level comment that hints at the main criticism against systemd. systemd is increasingly difficult to replace as time goes on. I like and use systemd because it has a fast boot, but I wish the project was developed in a more modular way that had choice built-in. It is instead developed as the way that everyone should systemd instead of alternatives. This philosophy gets in the way of distributions that want to provide alternatives (Devuan, Gentoo, Parabola, etc.). Some of the sysadmins I work with closely use Devuan and follow development. I hear the patch set around bypassing systemd grows in size and complexity each year which is worrisome for choice.
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. Good luck getting Gnome to work without systemd.
Full credit to Devuan, MxLinux, Artix, and the other united underdogs.
Fuck you Redhat/IBM and your proxy evil-doer Lennart.
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.