When people complain about systemd "violating the unix philosophy", this is what they actually mean
When people complain about systemd "violating the unix philosophy", this is what they actually mean
Credit for the answer used in the right panel: https://serverfault.com/a/841150
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm using Debian without ever having been involved in the init-wars. What's wrong with Systemd and why should i not use it?
I'd like to know too, a ELI5 version if possible. Somethingsomething monolithic, but what does that actually mean for me as an end user?
In my personal opinion, correct me if I'm wrong:
Systemd was created to replace the init system, then through extreme scope creep took over way more than wanted and needed, the main developer was "problematic" to say it politically correct, and in practice it has over complicated many super easy tasks to the point that I hate it. Other init systems were intuitive, systemd is all but.
Few weeks ago I setup a systemd server ssh server. Changing the port would be 5 seconds in changing a line in the sshd config, but now with the new and improved systemd I need to follow some nightmare documentation into creating systemd files in unrelated places and reload configs or something and I'm done with it
If you've never had a reason to not use it, then it's fine to continue using it. Systemd has been shown to be more or less stable, fast, and secure. The reason I don't like it is because it makes simple things really complicated. Some examples:
- The meme
- u/[email protected] example with sshd
- Distros that use systemd init also seems to prefer using other systemd components as well. So you can get caught in weird situations where one task is spread across two different systems (e.g. systemd timers vs cron, systemd-elogind vs acpid)
If none of these sound familiar, then switching to a non-systemd distro likely won't make your life easier. But if you do, then it might be worth considering.