69

I have seen so many times that systemd is insecure, bloated, etc. So i wonder ¿does it worth to switch to another init system?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Systemd vs anything else is mostly controversy, the outlet of a bunch of people that don't want Linux to evolve, become better and have more flexibility because it violates the UNIX philosophy and/or it is backed by big corp. Systemd was made to tackle a bunch of issues with poorly integrated tools and old architectures that aren't as good as they used to be. If you look at other operating systems. Even Apple has a better service manager (launchd) than what Linux had with init and friends.

Systemd is incredibly versatile and most people are unaware of its full potential. Apart from the obvious - start services - it can also run most of a base system with features such as networking (IPv4+IPV6, PBR), NTP, Timers (cron replacement), secure DNS resolutions, isolate processes, setup basic firewalls, port forwarding, centralize logging (in an easy way to query and read), monitor and restart services, detect hardware changes and react to them, mount filesystems, listen for connections in sockets and launch programs to handle incoming data, become your bootloader and... even run full fledged containers both privileged and non-privileged containers. Read this for more details: https://tadeubento.com/2023/systemd-hidden-gems-for-a-better-linux/

The question isn't "what is the benefit of removing this init system", it is "what I'll be missing if I remove it". Although it is possible to do all the above without Systemd, you'll end up with a lot of small integration pains and dozens of processes and different tools all wasting resources.

[-] hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

I would be interested in using a distro that uses only systemd for everything(preferably arch based). Is there such a distro? I know it can be done manually,but I lack the time or patience to do it at this time.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Debian isn't that far from it right now.

[-] hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

TBH I like Debian, but am used to Arch and plasma. I like the fact that Debian sticks to default DEs with no customizations. If I ever get tired of Arch (probably not) Debian is next on the list.

[-] Railison@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

The article you linked is really nifty! Are there any distros that are using all or nearly all of the features that systemd provides?

[-] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 2 points 1 year ago

In Gentoo we can enable or disable most features via USE flag: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-apps/systemd

This enables the user to select how much (or little) of systemd is used on their system. It's also one of the few distros that enables you to switch init systems on a running system if you really want to.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, I wrote the article as a collections of thoughts and links of what I've learn about systemd over the years. The reality is that when Debian moved to systemd I wasn't that happy but after learning all it can do and the way it works I see it was the best move.

[-] t0m5k1@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

That list of "features" never needed to be replaced by systemd and for the most part are provided by the other init offerings.

As for logging you may find yourself one with a system using systemd that has faced an error and cannot boot good luck reading the binary journal it makes, yes these entries can be pushed out to text file or syslog but if systemd falls over hard it will log to the default binary journal and you'll need to use another install with systemd to run journalctl --file /path/to/mounted/journal which in an emergency is a true PITA.

It is not an outlet for those who you choose to espouse as "People who don't want linux to evolve" far from it most of them just want systemd to stop trying to replace things that are not broken and for other projects to stop having it as a hard dependency. Yes it is modular, yes these can be disabled but it has so many tentacles that it is clear the intentions are wider than just being an init.

What's wrong with ip, iproute2, iptables/nftables, ufw, firewalld, ntp, dnscrypt, privoxy, dnsmasq, openresolve, crond, sudo, mount, syslog-ng?

Are they somehow obsolete now?

If you want a basic bootloader your UEFI has one built in and/or you can boot the kernel directly with efistub, systemd-boot is so basic it's pointless to the point that an unconfigured install of refind is a truckload better.

I get that this is a hot topic but waaay too many people are just adding pointless opinion and toxic opinion into this debate that doesn't help anyone make what they want is a decent informed choice and tbh when I see Gnome make a hard dependency of systemd it makes me think either systemd is doing too much, is not modular enough, devs got lazy or all of the above.

And a final FYI I use systemd and have disabled much of it but can't uninstall the parts I don't need/want.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That list of “features” never needed to be replaced by systemd and for the most part are provided by the other init offerings.

This is plain wrong. Init wasn't able to properly start things in parallel and monitor them. With systemd you can even create a visual representation graph of your boot services that you can use to identify what is taking more time and when things are happening.

What’s wrong with ip, iproute2, iptables/nftables, ufw, firewalld, ntp, dnscrypt, privoxy, dnsmasq, openresolve, crond, sudo, mount, syslog-ng?

What's wrong? Too many tools, way too fragmented and poorly integrated. It is very, very easy to get into trouble if you simply setup a dual stack system with IPv6-PD with those tools. With systemd it all works of the box with simples configuration files and its way more intuitive. For eg. cron is a mess, systemd timers share the unit config format which is way better and more scalable.

I use systemd and have disabled much of it

So you are saying you could just have a very small footprint and have a very lightweight system that is very solid but instead of choose to go with a bunch of different tools? I've leveraged systemd to be able to have fully working system on devices with 256MB of RAM while still having RAM for other important applications.

[-] t0m5k1@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Here's a handy chart for you

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems

As you can see many have the ability to start services in parallel. Some script magic with graphviz will also do similar to analyse blame.

What's wrong? Too many tools, way too fragmented and poorly integrated. It is very, very easy to get into trouble if you simply setup a dual stack system with IPv6-PD with those tools. With systemd it all works of the box with simples configuration files and its way more intuitive. For eg. cron is a mess, systemd timers share the unit config format which is way better and more scalable.

Do you honestly beloved thie mental gymnastics your getting into just to prove your point, go back to windows. Lol

Well done on using systemd how you wish, now move on and let others use it how they wish or remove it.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's not gymnastics, it's years and years of init bullshit and fragmentation / lack of integration related issues that were solved by systemd.

[-] t0m5k1@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Keep telling yourself that, meanwhile we'll all see your obvious dislike of of general userland tools.

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don’t dislike them, I never disliked them… I simply came to like systemd’s efficiency more.

[-] t0m5k1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yup, windows is calling you.

Bye

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
69 points (82.9% liked)

Linux

47996 readers
1007 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS