• MajorSauce
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      IIRC, it goes against the OG Gnu/Linux philosophy of having multiple small tools that interconnect well together. Systemd is seen as monolithic and cumbersome by some/most(?).

      If someone is more connected to this debate feel free to correct me!

      • Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s pretty much it. Systemd goes against the philosophy of “do one thing, and do it well” by doing a whole lot of things and being integrated to an extent that makes it pretty much impossible to use only an arbitrary subset of its components while replacing the rest with alternatives. I understand where the critics are coming from, but I honestly don’t care either way.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        even though in reality, it actually is a bunch of small tools designed to interconnect well together. systemd is not a single binary. They are designed to work together, so they’re distributed together. A modern system is a very complicated and interconnected set of systems. There’s a limit to how small you can make each individual tool before the plumbing required becomes just as much work as the actual work that needs doing

    • Lain Iwakura@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      SystemD is an init system (it initializes the userspace) and takes care of managing services. Its quite an important piece of software. There are many reasons linux elitists hate it . I honestly don’t care about it as long as it successfully boots my system which it does. In fact I like the syntax for systemctl…

      Obligatory I use Arch btw!