I'll be honest, I don't (yet) understand why so many people hate . Perhaps someone could point me to some good arguments for/against?

@5am I don't know all the reasons. The first I always hear is that it is contrary to the philosophy of Unix.

* It is one thing trying to do many things (not always good, but good enough) rather than one thing to do one thing well.

I have seen comments regarding boot times, security (because it is involved in so many processes), and also complaints that it was developed by Red Hat (IBM).

It is easy to try different distros that do not come with systemd. Devuan and MX come to mind.

@bbbhltz I guess I've never known/used GNU/Linux without it, and I'm not experienced enough to know the ins and outs of its significance, flaws etc, though I do have a grasp of simple service management, creating files for custom services etc. That's one aspect I've always thought was great.

@5am for people who've suffered through maintaining start/stop scripts for multiple init systems over the years, the uniformity of systemd is a godsend.

Most of the animosity stems from people who are unwilling to learn something new and adjust to the admittedly different ways. For example, you can't just `tail -f syslog`. But in the old days you also couldn't `journalctl -u postfix --since -1h`. So yeah.


@fedops @5am I am fine either way, to be honest. When I used MX I didn't even know it used a different init system. I don't have servers or develop anything. Once in a blue moon I have to restart a service and the manpage gets me the answer I need.

@bbbhltz @fedops same situation with me, including trying MX once and not realising the difference.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.