this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
131 points (95.2% liked)

Linux

58052 readers
388 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

SystemD is blamed for long boot times and being heavy and bloated on resources. I tried OpenRC and Runit on real hardware (Ryzen 5000-series laptop) for week each and saw only 1 second faster boot time.

I'm old enough to remember plymouth.service (graphical image) being the most slowest service on boot in Ubuntu 16.04 and 18.04. But I don't see that as an issue anymore. I don't have a graphical systemD boot on my Arch but I installed Fedora Sericea and it actually boots faster than my Arch despite the plymouth (or whatever they call it nowadays).

My 2 questions:

  1. Is the current SystemD rant derived from years ago (while they've improved a lot)?
  2. Should Linux community rant about bigger problems such as Wayland related things not ready for current needs of normies?
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] count0 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

For someone coming from NeXTStep (BSD based), having worked with SCO, various BSD and mostly Linux for the last 20 years, the worst thing about systemd is documentation that's easily accessible/readable for people used to a traditional init system.

"How do I get it to do special use case X" was a basically unanswerable question when it got dragged into the mainstream (for reasons I can very well understand - the reasons for the dragging, that is, the bad docs, not so much).

Maybe that's improved in the mean time - I wouldn't know, I had to figure it out back then and now I know its lingo when searching and such.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes. Yes it is. systemd isn't bad for boot times, but more for tying so many goddamn things to init, PID1, creating just about the best attack point one could ever ask for. Wayland not being ready can be solved by not using it for the time being. Just use X. Also, it's still called plymouth.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

I am for most part quite happy with it. For all the complexity it brings, it also allows you to do a lot of stuff easily and reliable that would have been a nightmare with previous systems.

My biggest nitpick is that some commands are needlessly obtuse, e.g. trying to find an error message in journalctl is a mess when you aren't already deeply familiar with the tool. It will show you messages that are months old by default, will give exactly the same output for typos in the unit name as it will for no error messages and other little things like that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (15 children)

As service manager systemd nice, but look all services:

systemd + systemd/journal + systemd/Timers
systemd-boot
systemd-creds
systemd-cryptenroll
systemd-firstboot
systemd-home
systemd-logind
systemd-networkd
systemd-nspawn
systemd-resolved
systemd-stub
systemd-sysusers
systemd-timesyncd

That's look as overkill. I use only systemd, journald, systemd-boot, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved and systemd-timesyncd, but that a lot systemd. Feel like system make monolith.

systemd-nspawn for example. Systems manager for containers. Seriously. Why than exists? I don't understand. Really, someone use that daemon?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

AFAIK, nspawn is mostly a debugging tool for working with the init system without having to actually boot a live system/VM. At least that's all I've ever used it for.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It also a use case. =)

The documentation for systemd-nspawn itself says:

systemd-nspawn — Spawn a command or OS in a light-weight container

The developers themselves position the daemon as a simple alternative to LXD containers.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm honestly a big fan. Systemd-init has tons of options like run targets, sandbox options, users you want things to run as, etc. System-oomd has tons of qol stuff for desktop users to help with stutter and responsiveness. I am also kind of excited for UKI that systemd-boot is set to support.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I go crazy over boot times, systems is faster on every machine I’ve tried it on. The biggest difference I’ve seen is replacing grub, both systems-boot and car-boot seem to shave off a decent amount.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

systemd-boot vs. GRUB should make no appreciable difference other than default timeouts and those are configurable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I make plymouth do the verbose mode because it's cool and hacker-y. Also I like when it says "failed" and I know what failed. For a few weeks I kept having to manually start firewalld and I never would have known otherwise, update seems to have fixed that though.

Tbf, I really only have experience with fedora and thus systemd, so, I like it but I "don't know what I'm missing" in a sense.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

As a guy that's been installing Linux since you had to compile network drivers and adjust the init scripts to use them; SystemD rocks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

The traditional init systems suited me just fine, i saw no need to change them. If they were so bad, then they could've been fixed or replaced.

The migration to systemd felt forced. Debian surprised everyone with the change. Also systemd's development is/was backed by corporate Red Hat, their lead developer wasn't exactly loved either and is now working for Microsoft. Of course Canonical's Ubuntu adopted it as well. Overall feels like Windows' svchost.exe, hence people accusing it of vendor lock-in.

It's not just an init system, it's way waaay more. It's supposed to be modular, but good luck keeping only its PID1 in a distro that supports systemd. It breaks the "do one thing right" approach and, in practice, does take away choice which pisses me off.

I had been using Debian since Woody, but that make me change to Gentoo on my desktop which, to me, took the best path: they default to OpenRC but you're free to use systemd if you want to. That's choice. For servers i now prefer Slackware and the laptop runs Devuan whenever i boot it up.

To be fair systemd hasn't shown its ugly face in the Ubuntu VMs i'm forced to use at work.

YMMV. If you're happy with it, fine. This, of course, is only my opinion.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›