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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
While I don't enjoy the fact that this introduces a ton of maintenance issues on systemd-less systems that would like to continue supporting GNOME, I do think leveraging systemd to elegantly revive the session save/restore functionality bodes a lot of optimism for the set of features that will follow.
I'm at least thankful that this maintainer/contributor dedicated about half of their announcement on how systemd-less systems could alleviate this issue.
Good news: session save/restore
Bad news: lennart's tumor
Verdict: nope.
Well this is bound to be controversial, to say the least. GNOME and systemd are two pieces of software that attract very polarized opinions.
I'm interested to see how this evolves. The planned session restore feature sounds nice. With the Wayland changes coming too, GNOME 50 should be a big deal, one way or another.
Ubuntu + Snap + GNOME + Wayland + Systemd
Holy moly, there is a lot of stuff for haters to talk about. Each of these parts are very polarizing on its own, but combined, phew.
You forgot rust 🦀
Oh my, you are right, sudo-rs!!
Are there rust haters? I guess there must be, but I don't think I've run across that so much as the "everything ever made must be rewritten in rust" crowd, and then everyone else who doesn't much care what language is used as long as it works.
It's probably the MIT licensed rust reimplementation of coreutils and sudo-rs
Finally, because nobody needs to manage system like it's the 2000's nor have duplicate daemons around to do stuff that systemd does in 1/4 of the resources and with less bugs.
There are only 2 types of people. Who hate systemd and those who don't know what systemd is. \s
Maybe it's not so great how monolithic systemd is, but it has brought a lot of great functionality to the Linux world. Not as if Linux has ever been married to the Unix philosophy anyways.
i know what systemd is, don't really get the hate.
I think for those people it boils down to systemd being an init system that does more than an init system maybe should. Combine that with it being more complicated to work with and with Redhat not really being that open to feedback.
The funny thing is that the init part is working really really well. At least from a user perspective. Writing a unit file is soooo much easier than writing an init script. You just point it at the executable of your service and are done. Systemd does the complicated rest.
for my mundane tasks, i don't notice much complication. what makes it more complicated to work with?
Mundane tasks weren't really the focus. This was a debate between Redhat and the Linux old guard where the points were all based on the extremes. They follow different ideas on how tools should work, though. Init systems focus on doing one or few things but doing them very well (the traditional UNIX approach). Systemd is a suite of many moving parts to accomplish a whole range of tasks (more modern). Init is mostly just bootstrap and services, but systemd is that plus networking, plus user sessions, plus logging, etc etc. More moving parts means increased complexity and more chance for failure. Systemd as a suite then becomes a potential single point failure where init based systems would not be. Scripting for either can be involved, but generally speaking init is/was easier to write things for.
I think most users today focus on Redhat's control and not putting too much faith in one setup for diversity's sake rather than the other points, but the original debate really was a philosophically based one. There isn't a right or wrong on these, but some really interesting history.
It is another word for patriarchy, right?