- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.world
Potentially this means that Fedora and CentOS stream do not get timely updates implemented in RHEL.
Canonical must be throwing a party, and I bet SUSE is not hating it either
Potentially this means that Fedora and CentOS stream do not get timely updates implemented in RHEL.
Canonical must be throwing a party, and I bet SUSE is not hating it either
Pure Debian is the way.
Debian has always had a primary focus on being open source and adhering to good open source principles. It’s a rare trait in the modern Linux ecosystem sadly, with so many corporate distros just trying to make a buck. Arch seems pretty good about open principles as well. I’m always going to stick to community-powered distros over ones backed by corporations and I suggest everyone who cares about FOSS do the same.
It was until they shipped systemd. Bloody mess.
systemd is one of the best things that has happened with linux. Instead of random shell scripts that work differently on each distro, now you have a single ini conf file for your service that configures automatic restarts, sandboxing and activation in a easy to use way.
I’m so confused as to why people hate systemd.
I mean a core issue is that it doesn’t adhere to the unix principle of do one thing and do it well. Aside from that it essentially creates a middle layer where things can happen without you really knowing it’s happening. If you haven’t I’d suggest running a couple of different init systems to see what I mean.
I’m ambivalent, I like systemd because it’s convenient, but I also like openrc because it’s simple.
deleted by creator
A specific design philosophy that is adhered to means the software has greater interoperability, reliability, and maintainability. When you are criticising something that adheres to a design philosophy, communicate how it’s adhering to that philosophy to it’s own detriment.
Same here… I like it a lot.
I don’t like systemd. Reasons:
broad scope and lots of dependencies are more or less the exact opposite design philosophy of *nix
putting too many eggs in one basket intrinsically increases the attack vector and also decreases stability
bloated
Most importantly:
They see all the other stuff that gets packaged under the systemd name and assume it’s non-optional. While many distributions do, annoyingly, ship the auxiliary packages like resolved by default, they’re not required if you just want to use the init system, and honestly they kind of strike me as an attempt to supplement or replace some of the incumbent components of your average distro.
Systemd-resolved can suck my whole grundle, though.
@eltimablo @SmokeInFog @words_number @vegivamp @bigkahuna1986
“Systemd-resolved can suck my whole grundle, though.”
Actual lol, and I agree. I’ve kinda learned to live with it and to most keep it out of the way, but seriously what a pain.
And I think it sped up booting a lot too by doing more in parallel.
If you don’t mind me asking, why do you not like systemd? I like it a lot and in my humble opinion it makes life really easy.
This literally feels like the geek equivalent of culture wars stoked to divide people just for the sake of it
APT is the mess, I’ve never had more issues with broken packages and unbreakable dependency cycles than with APT
This is why I always use aptitude to manage my packages, and always review all planned actions (other than simple upgrades) before proceeding.
Yeah i’ve had problems with both Mint and Pop with broken packages. Easy to fix with synaptic package manager, but annoying.
Try NALA, it works much better in my experience compared to APT.
Big Nala fan also. Definitely a better UI experience too
Anyone who thinks systemd is a mess has obviously never struggled with the failings of its predecessor. Systemd is a major improvement.