Out of all the Linux init systems out there, which one are you actually daily driving right now and why? ​Have you tried any others before your current one? What made you stick with it over the rest?

  • hello_hello [hy/hym]@hexbear.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    Most distributions use systemd at varying levels of buy-in (Fedora adopts newest systemd components for example). People dislike systemd either for one: Dbus dependency or two: they hate Lennart Poettering (maintainer of systemd) or three (most likely): they’re a chud (culture war).

    systemd is an tremendous piece of software that many people don’t take their time to learn. Poettering hosts a blog where he speaks about new features in systemd: https://0pointer.net/blog/

    Did you know systemd can be used to escalate privileges instead of using sudo/doas with run0 (https://mastodon.social/@daandemeyer/115565105032166177) or that it can statically configure network interfaces/links with systemd-networkd and function simultaneously with NetworkManager? Or that systemd can spawn OS containers via systemd-nspawn that can be used to run services/create software development environments (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd for more info)

    • machinya [it/its, fae/faer]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 days ago

      or four) your last two paragraphs are the exact reason (and in my experience, the most common one). most of those features should not be part of an init system but they are, slowly growing into everything and becoming a dependency into many different programs

      i won’t deny that there is an improvement if you are interested in your machine as only an appliance (for example, what is even the init system of android?) since you don’t want to ever care a bit about your base OS

      • hello_hello [hy/hym]@hexbear.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        I recommend reading Poettering’s myth-debunking post on common systemd criticisms (https://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html). Some of these are even outdated (like the dbus one where current systemd development is focused around building a alternative varlink interface for IPC in addition to dbus).

        Most other init systems can achieve service paralleization and other goodies that systemd-init provides but that isn’t the whole point of systemd.

        The tagline for systemd is “systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system. It provides a system and service manager that runs as PID 1 and starts the rest of the system.” So it’s clearly not concerned with just being an init system and hasn’t been for a long time.

          • hello_hello [hy/hym]@hexbear.netM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            But these components aren’t strictly part of systemd-init. networkd, systemd-boot, resolved, etc are all optional blocks. Its possible to use systemd-init and not buy into other features.

            Software does not depend on systemd they depend on features systemd provides (ex: GNOME and KDE simplifying their login/startup sequence by leveraging systemd-userdb)