This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up,
brainwashed sheeple!

<https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:

> This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
> systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up,
> brainwashed sheeple!
>
> <https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>

Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.

I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.

--
A figure with curves always offers a lot of interesting angles.

On 08/10/2024 11:39, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:
>
>> This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
>> systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up,
>> brainwashed sheeple!
>>
>> <https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
>
> Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.
>
> I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.
>
It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
there to stroke the ego of programmers.

But as with so many other pieces of code designed to be a Swiss army
knife when all you wanted was a toothpick (Postscript, X windows spring
to mind and indeed the socket library which was originally designed to
support many other protocols than TCP/IP) if people keep fixing the bugs
in the bits most used and documenting it far more than its designer
bothered, it can eventually be made to work well *enough* for the
limited uses to which it ends up being put...of course it will be
bloated with all the features that no one ever uses, until a hacker
discovers a way to break into systems using it...

--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 10/8/2024 06:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/10/2024 11:39, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:
>>
>>> This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
>>> systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up,
>>> brainwashed sheeple!
>>>
>>> <https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
>>
>> Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.
>>
>> I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.
>>
> It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
> there to stroke the ego of programmers.
>
> But as with so many other pieces of code designed to be a Swiss army
> knife when all you wanted was a toothpick (Postscript, X windows spring
> to mind and indeed the socket library which was originally designed to
> support many other protocols than TCP/IP) if people keep fixing the bugs
> in the bits most used and documenting it far more than its designer
> bothered, it can eventually be made to work well *enough* for the
> limited uses to which it ends up being put...of course it will be
> bloated with all the features that no one ever uses, until a hacker
> discovers a way to break into systems using it...
>
>
>
>
>

Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV? For me, I always
feel that it's better to have 2 or more 'somethings' then one
'something'. If you only have 1 'something' then you tend to isolate
yourself into believing something is better then anything else. I've
talked to Systemd guys and I've talked to InitV guys and they both have
pros and cons for each of these two systems. At the end of the day it's
the system administrator that has to decide which of the two is best for
their deployment(s). In the work environment I was in, we had many
systems, some using InitV and others using Systemd. When I asked about
it, they (the administrators) were able to properly articulate why InitV
was chosen for 'these systems' while Systemd was chosen for 'those
systems'. The arguments were pretty well thought out. So clearly InitV
is lacking in certain environments, and Systemd is bad in others. So to
me, having choices is a good thing.

Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
source or go home is my take, but I digress).

I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

On 10/8/2024 06:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/10/2024 11:39, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:
>>
>>> This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
>>> systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up,
>>> brainwashed sheeple!
>>>
>>> <https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
>>
>> Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.
>>
>> I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.
>>
> It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
> there to stroke the ego of programmers.
>
> But as with so many other pieces of code designed to be a Swiss army
> knife when all you wanted was a toothpick (Postscript, X windows spring
> to mind and indeed the socket library which was originally designed to
> support many other protocols than TCP/IP) if people keep fixing the bugs
> in the bits most used and documenting it far more than its designer
> bothered, it can eventually be made to work well *enough* for the
> limited uses to which it ends up being put...of course it will be
> bloated with all the features that no one ever uses, until a hacker
> discovers a way to break into systems using it...
>
>
>
>
>

Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV? For me, I always
feel that it's better to have 2 or more 'somethings' then one
'something'. If you only have 1 'something' then you tend to isolate
yourself into believing something is better then anything else. I've
talked to Systemd guys and I've talked to InitV guys and they both have
pros and cons for each of these two systems. At the end of the day it's
the system administrator that has to decide which of the two is best for
their deployment(s). In the work environment I was in, we had many
systems, some using InitV and others using Systemd. When I asked about
it, they (the administrators) were able to properly articulate why InitV
was chosen for 'these systems' while Systemd was chosen for 'those
systems'. The arguments were pretty well thought out. So clearly InitV
is lacking in certain environments, and Systemd is bad in others. So to
me, having choices is a good thing.

Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
source or go home is my take, but I digress).

I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Phillip Frabott wrote:

> Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?

There was Upstart, but it's been dead for a decade ...

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 15:15:11 -0400, Phillip Frabott wrote:

> I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
> Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
> but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've
never been burned by it.

Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> wrote:
> Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?

There are lots of 'em. OpenRC is another common default for
distros.

Here's a list, but not complete:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems

Also Busybox has a clone of SysV init, and OpenWrt has their own
"procd" system.

> Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
> vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
> distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
> whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
> source or go home is my take, but I digress).

Well I started taking Systemd with the distros, then I had to
actually change something with it and experienced the appalling
design, then I made the effort to switch everything back to SysVinit
(I found Devuan, with its separate package repos, far more reliable
than AntiX as a Systemd-free version of Debian). My reasons had
already been stated, and argued against, by others at that point.
No reason for me to go into them now.

> I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
> Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
> but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Systemd is an obscenely complicated way to do an init system, but
there's nothing about it that needs to be complicated. It does a
simple job at heart and new alternatives aren't hard to make (or
find).

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 11:48:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
> there to stroke the ego of programmers.

For a fast and efficient boot-up two things are crucial:

To start less.
And to start more in parallel.

...

An init system that is responsible for maintaining services
needs to listen to hardware and software changes.

...

[I]s this kind of logic new? No, it certainly is not. The
most prominent system that works like this is Apple’s
launchd system ...

-- Lennart Poettering, “Rethinking PID 1”
<http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd.html>

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 20:50:47 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> Phillip Frabott wrote:
>
>> Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
>
> There was Upstart, but it's been dead for a decade ...

Typical of Ubuntu to try to roll their own. Thankfully, they were talked
out of it this time.

On 8 Oct 2024 20:38:30 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've
> never been burned by it.

systemd-haters are like the anti-fluoridationists of the open-source
world.

On 10/8/2024 16:38, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 15:15:11 -0400, Phillip Frabott wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
>> Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
>> but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
>
> I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've
> never been burned by it.

I mean, yeah.. But I should also point out that I'm one of the few that
probably doesn't have X11/Xorg default to open at boot and do everything
I can not to use a Windowing system if I don't have to. I have been a
CLI guy since the 90's and never left it. So I guess, in a way, I could
be lobbed up with those anti-systemd haters only exchange that with
X11/Xorg. Although I don't 'hate' X11/Xorg, I just don't like using it.
But I'm not against others having access to it if they want.

A lot of times the anti-systemd crowd say that Systemd violates the Unix
philosophy. I'll have to go back and read it again (it's probably been
25+ years since I've read the Unix manifesto) and see where Systemd
violates it. But otherwise, options are options and it gets harder and
harder for the "do-one-thing-only" requirement to hold in today's world.
I mean, technically X11/Xorg violates Unix and I'm sure most of the
anti-Systemd crowd use X11/Xorg so I can't really figure it out myself.
But sometimes people have their fav and feel like the need to defend it
from competition. That's just my view on it though. Someone can tell me
otherwise if they would like.

On 10/8/2024 17:39, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> wrote:
>> Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
>
> There are lots of 'em. OpenRC is another common default for
> distros.
>
> Here's a list, but not complete:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems
>
> Also Busybox has a clone of SysV init, and OpenWrt has their own
> "procd" system.
>

Thanks! I'll have to check them out!

>> Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
>> vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
>> distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
>> whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
>> source or go home is my take, but I digress).
>
> Well I started taking Systemd with the distros, then I had to
> actually change something with it and experienced the appalling
> design, then I made the effort to switch everything back to SysVinit
> (I found Devuan, with its separate package repos, far more reliable
> than AntiX as a Systemd-free version of Debian). My reasons had
> already been stated, and argued against, by others at that point.
> No reason for me to go into them now.

See? That's what I'm talking about. You tried it, it didn't work the way
you needed it to and you went back to what you used before. That's a
perfect example of what I was talking about. Use what you like and/or
what works for your situation or environment.

>> I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
>> Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
>> but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
>
> Systemd is an obscenely complicated way to do an init system, but
> there's nothing about it that needs to be complicated. It does a
> simple job at heart and new alternatives aren't hard to make (or
> find).
>

I'm not going to disagree. Systemd is complicated compared to InitV.
That being says, it always comes down to what people like and what works
for them.

(talking more on the anti-Systemd crowd in the below paragraphs)

The same argument could be made about systemd-networkd vs dhcpcd. To me,
dhcpcd is (at least from what I can see) overly complicated compared to
systemd-networkd, however, I use dhcpcd because in my environment it was
much easier to configure. But I have seen it fail in very complicated
environments where the go-to ended up being systemd-networkd because it
was easier to configure for the specific environment that system was in.

So again, I don't think having options (even one's that are more
complicated) is a bad thing. I think people should look at all the
things that are available, try them all out, then pick whats best for
their needs. Those who think Systemd should die and people that use
Systemd are somehow brainwashed (paraphrasing the OP of this thread) is
just wrong in my opinion. There should never be a case where there is
only 1 option. It's just bad for business and bad for users in general.
If it wasn't then we'd only have 1 fast food place, 1 restaurant, 1
airline, 1 OS, and 1 PC, etc etc..

Options...

Again thank you for the list of other init systems. I'll check them out!

Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:

> Systemd is complicated compared to
> InitV.

In the most important way, systemd is way more simple than InitV.

With systemd, each service has one .service file which is sufficient to
start, monitor, restart, and stop that service.

Compare that with InitV which has a shell script for each service and a
forest of soft links for starting and stopping the service.

--
Dan Espen

On 2024-10-09, Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> wrote:
> I'm not going to disagree. Systemd is complicated compared to InitV.
> That being says, it always comes down to what people like and what works
> for them.

The old stuff that we remember from our youth is easy for us; to the
degree that we remember what we did 40 years ago, we don't need to read
the man pages.

But redhat has funding from and obligations to groups that run large
datacenters that need to be managed from control desks based on
parameterized templates, and to support these needs, they built
something that works for that crowd.

I just wish they had some simple articles that I could find that makes
it easier for me to find where thy put the things I need to edit to make
my SMALL and SIMPLE system to work in MY environment.

Where is the per-network-device data that used to be in
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts now? I know I am supposed to use
network-manager, but how does it play with ifconfig and "ip addr" and
"ip route"? The amount of documentation i need to read to do simple
things like making sure that my default route is correct on bootup is
daunting. So instead I put a startup file in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or
the root crontab "@reboot", even though I am sure there is a systemd
service definition I am supposed to make a simple edit to.

On 10/8/2024 21:52, Dan Espen wrote:
> Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:
>
>> Systemd is complicated compared to
>> InitV.
>
> In the most important way, systemd is way more simple than InitV.
>
> With systemd, each service has one .service file which is sufficient to
> start, monitor, restart, and stop that service.
>
> Compare that with InitV which has a shell script for each service and a
> forest of soft links for starting and stopping the service.
>
>

I probably should clarify my intention by that statement...

I agree with you that Systemd, from the users perspective is easier. I
was commenting that the way in which Systemd operates (the stuff we
don't see) is complicated compared to the serialized, synchronous nature
of InitV. I've learned over the 40 years that You can make the program
simple, but complicated to use, or you can make the program complex, but
easier to use.

Hopefully that clarifies my statement. Sorry for the confusion.

Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

On 10/8/2024 22:15, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 2024-10-09, Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> wrote:
>> I'm not going to disagree. Systemd is complicated compared to InitV.
>> That being says, it always comes down to what people like and what works
>> for them.
>
> The old stuff that we remember from our youth is easy for us; to the
> degree that we remember what we did 40 years ago, we don't need to read
> the man pages.
>
> But redhat has funding from and obligations to groups that run large
> datacenters that need to be managed from control desks based on
> parameterized templates, and to support these needs, they built
> something that works for that crowd.
>
> I just wish they had some simple articles that I could find that makes
> it easier for me to find where thy put the things I need to edit to make
> my SMALL and SIMPLE system to work in MY environment.
>
> Where is the per-network-device data that used to be in
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts now? I know I am supposed to use
> network-manager, but how does it play with ifconfig and "ip addr" and
> "ip route"? The amount of documentation i need to read to do simple
> things like making sure that my default route is correct on bootup is
> daunting. So instead I put a startup file in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or
> the root crontab "@reboot", even though I am sure there is a systemd
> service definition I am supposed to make a simple edit to.

Yeah, and again it's what works for you. Use it. You know, why use
Systemd if InitV works well for you and you know how to use it? That's
why I like having more then one option, and your reply proves the point
I'm making. People should stop worrying about if Systemd vs InitV vs
Upstart vs Launchd, vs etc etc is better or not. People needs to just
use what works for them and don't worry about what other people use. I
think the anti-systemd crowd (and I should say the same for the
anti-initV crowd too because there are a lot of them around too) need to
just do what they think is best for them and their systems and stop
worrying about what others use. But that's just me.

--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

On 10/8/24 7:09 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2024 20:38:30 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've
>> never been burned by it.
>
> systemd-haters are like the anti-fluoridationists of the open-source
> world.

Ummmmmmm ... search recent med news ... seems fluoride
DOES cause a degree of IQ drop. Fluoridated kiddies
might have slightly better smiles - but they'll be
stupider :-)

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 20:45:37 -0400, Phillip Frabott wrote:

> A lot of times the anti-systemd crowd say that Systemd violates the Unix
> philosophy.

“There’s a lot of suggestions that it violates the Unix
philosophy, which I usually take to mean that you want to write
software that does one thing and does it well and then connect it
to other things. systemd as a project contains a lot of things.
systemd as a daemon is a thing that reacts to events and starts
things and does it very well. And so you could claim that it does
not actually violate the unix philosophy. You could claim that
there’s a bit of violation in that it’s bringing all of this extra
functionality into the project; but I think for BSD projects to
criticize another project for bringing a bunch of
tangentially-linked software into one repository to manage it
collectively ... that’s a bit rich.”
-- Benno Rice, “The Tragedy Of systemd”

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 02:15:34 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen wrote:

> I just wish they had some simple articles that I could find that makes
> it easier for me to find where thy put the things I need to edit to make
> my SMALL and SIMPLE system to work in MY environment.

The official reference for systemd is <https://systemd.io/>.

> Where is the per-network-device data that used to be in
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts now? I know I am supposed to use
> network-manager, but how does it play with ifconfig and "ip addr" and
> "ip route"?

Network Manager is quite independent of the iproute2 system, and neither
of them is tied to systemd (at least, systemd knows and cares nothing
about Network Manager, not sure if the feeling is mutual).

For example, I only allow Network Manager to run on my laptop, not on my
main workstation machines. I find it a pain to have on machines with fixed
IP addresses. But all of them run systemd.

> ... even though I am sure there is a systemd service
> definition I am supposed to make a simple edit to.

systemd even supports the idea of being able to make customizations to a
service file without having to edit the whole thing: you just override the
entries you’re interested in, in a separate “drop-in” config file (should
be called “mixin”, but hey...).

Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>But redhat has funding from and obligations to groups that run large
>datacenters that need to be managed from control desks based on
>parameterized templates, and to support these needs, they built
>something that works for that crowd.

And still those server people complain that systemd feels more like
its geared for desktop machines. Noone cares how long it takes to boot
a server, and many server jockeys would love the possibility to turn
off the parallelism of systemd when booting (for reproducibility,
sacrificing speed).

>Where is the per-network-device data that used to be in
>/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts now? I know I am supposed to use
>network-manager, but how does it play with ifconfig and "ip addr" and
>"ip route"?

systemd-networkd is an optional alternative to NetworkManager. It does
that job very well for the server and it is very nice to configuration
management. It can do VLANs and Bonding which is important in the
datacenter, but it doesn't do Wifi, which is important for the desktop
case, and it - as far as I know - doesn't do 802.1x which is important
for Wifi and also some corporate networks.

Greetings
Marc
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> wrote:
>Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?

Yes, but since the init system is tied so deeply into the
distribution, it might not be a very good idea to change the init
system of the distribution you have chosen. I mean, you CAN for
example use Debian with other init systems (I think that openrc is
packaged, and sysvinit is still available), BUT you'll have to write
the code / configuration to start your services yourself.

You don't want that.

Greetings
Marc

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

On 10/9/2024 01:55, Marc Haber wrote:
> Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> wrote:
>> Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV?
>
> Yes, but since the init system is tied so deeply into the
> distribution, it might not be a very good idea to change the init
> system of the distribution you have chosen. I mean, you CAN for
> example use Debian with other init systems (I think that openrc is
> packaged, and sysvinit is still available), BUT you'll have to write
> the code / configuration to start your services yourself.
>
> You don't want that.
>
> Greetings
> Marc
>

As someone who doesn't use a distro, it's not that much work. I already
build everything from source anyways, so it wouldn't be hard to try it out.

But I can understand other people not wanting to do that. Nonetheless,
people should always have options.

--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

On 08/10/2024 20:13, Phillip Frabott wrote:
> On 10/8/2024 06:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/10/2024 11:39, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:
>>>
>>>> This guy really knows what he’s talking about, over the whole sorry
>>>> systemd thing. You wonder why more people won’t listen to him. Wake up,
>>>> brainwashed sheeple!
>>>>
>>>> <https://papers.freebsd.org/2018/bsdcan/rice-the_tragedy_of_systemd/>
>>>
>>> Downloaded the PDF, will look at it later.
>>>
>>> I no longer think systemd is bad, to tell the truth.
>>>
>> It is like a lot of software, ill thought out and ill advised and only
>> there to stroke the ego of programmers.
>>
>> But as with so many other pieces of code designed to be a Swiss army
>> knife when all you wanted was a toothpick (Postscript, X windows
>> spring to mind and indeed the socket library which was originally
>> designed to support many other protocols than TCP/IP) if people keep
>> fixing the bugs in the bits most used and documenting it far more than
>> its designer bothered, it can eventually be made to work well *enough*
>> for the limited uses to which it ends up being put...of course it will
>> be bloated with all the features that no one ever uses, until a hacker
>> discovers a way to break into systems using it...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Is there anything else other then Systemd and InitV? For me, I always
> feel that it's better to have 2 or more 'somethings' then one
> 'something'. If you only have 1 'something' then you tend to isolate
> yourself into believing something is better then anything else. I've
> talked to Systemd guys and I've talked to InitV guys and they both have
> pros and cons for each of these two systems. At the end of the day it's
> the system administrator that has to decide which of the two is best for
> their deployment(s). In the work environment I was in, we had many
> systems, some using InitV and others using Systemd. When I asked about
> it, they (the administrators) were able to properly articulate why InitV
> was chosen for 'these systems' while Systemd was chosen for 'those
> systems'. The arguments were pretty well thought out. So clearly InitV
> is lacking in certain environments, and Systemd is bad in others. So to
> me, having choices is a good thing.
>
> Now, I'll give everyone this, most people don't think about "Why Systemd
> vs Why InitV" when they build their systems and if they don't have a
> distro that gives them a choice then sure, they are going to choose
> whatever their distro comes with (I hate distro's BTW. Build your own
> source or go home is my take, but I digress).
>
> I don't think it's a bad thing that we have 2 systems to choose from.
> Each has it's place. Personally, I'd love to see at least 3 more options
> but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
>
>
I have to live with systemd. These days using computers rather than
configuring them, I stay with the defaults.
Now Poettering has fucked off the long man years of fixing his shit begins.

I see pulse audio has been superseded...

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 2024-10-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On 8 Oct 2024 20:38:30 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> I've used both and don't really understand the hate for systemd but I've
>> never been burned by it.
>
> systemd-haters are like the anti-fluoridationists of the open-source
> world.

Is this going the Wayland route, where anyone complaining that there is
something they can't do in Wayland, or that specific X11 features are
required for their workflow, is immediatelly met with such "you're
anti-fluoridation!" attacks?

--
Nuno Silva