/tech/ - Technology

Technology & Computing

New Reply
Files Max 5 files32MB total
[New Reply]

[Hide] (4.7MB, 1280x720, 01:03)
Discuss methods to remove >systemd.
Replies: >>4
>>1 (OP) 
Instead of removing just get a distro without it in the first place.
Replies: >>5 >>118
This. But NixOS uses systemd by default and it probably wouldn't work well with alternate inits. GuixSD does use their own init and service manager.
[Hide] (1.2MB, 1000x944)
Literally impossible. Especially with the upcoming wave of rainbow employees in Red Hat.
There's currently no known way of convincing people that converting GNU/Linux into Windows/macOS ecosystems isn't good.
Replies: >>7
You forgot to put the Rust logo on that image.
Is BSD free of systemd?
Replies: >>11 >>12
BSD has BSD init. It's closer to something like Open RC than systemd.
Replies: >>13
systemd is only made for Linux. It won't work on BSD or other *nix OSes.
Replies: >>13
[Hide] (32.1KB, 640x481)
Might've sounded like a stupid question - I'm really just curious what the dangers of systemd and things like it are. 

t. Never used any unix or linux OS but am looking into it now that I've got my hands on a spare laptop from work
Replies: >>14 >>105 >>1748
It's GNU/Linux, not Linux.
[Hide] (4MB, 426x284)
Init is the first process started a Unix-like operating system when your machine boots up, and to some extent (exactly how much depends on your init system), it's responsible for all other processes which start up afterwards. Ideally you want something simple, both for your sake as a user and because simple software usually has fewer bugs and fewer security holes. And for context, until a few years ago most Linux distributions used SysV-style init which was widely regarded as a mess.
Now systemdicks is anything but simple. At absolute best its config files are supposedly less of a pain than SysV init scripts, which is the main reason distro maintainers adopt it, but otherwise? It's this horrendous clusterfuck which is not-so-subtly trying to take over the Linux ecosystem by shoving a bunch of unrelated shit into itself and absorbing unrelated projects. Not only is it an init system, now it has its greasy fingers in everything from logging and device management to DNS, printing, your computer's clock, boot management, and managing your home folder. All of these are interdependent in complex, very retarded ways, and they're also written by some legendarily shit programmers who are convinced they're hot shit. This also means systemd breaks in complex, very retarded ways, and more often than not its dumbass devs are too proud to admit any bugs you find exist until the entire internet and occasionally the fucking government screams at them.

So why does anyone use this piece of shit? That's...complicated. And it involves distro politics and lefty faggotry way, way more than it should, including the devs calling people who don't use systemd sexists and racists. The devs and systemd's fanboys also love to pretend that there are only two alternatives to SysV init: systemd and upstart, so they flog  upstart over and over even though no one's used that trash for years and hope no one notices that there's other init systems these days and that they're objectively better and way simpler than systemd.
[Hide] (49.9KB, 265x373)
>calling people who don't use systemd sexists and racists
I was already considering switching to Devuan, but now I definitely will.
Replies: >>109
I was just looking at that as well, thinking about switching to it from Kubuntu instead of updating to 20 next year. How much of my shit will break without systemdicks though?
Replies: >>164
Note: most of the time systemd does "just work." But if it does fuck up for you there's a significant change your only recourse will be patching it yourself.
Thanks, anon. So can systemd even be removed? Something at a kernel level like that seems like it would be impossible to detach without rebuilding things from the ground up.
Replies: >>116 >>117
The whole point of init is that it's in userspace. PID 1 has special rights but you should be able to replace it with whatever and have no problems. Not that you should have to, because all init should be doing is reaping child processes.
Replies: >>117
As >>116 says, it's in userspace, the problem is that systemd likes shoving its tentacles in everything and its fanboys do everything they can to help this along. Distros which go full-throttle into systemd cancer can be hard to uncuck thoroughly, hard enough that just switching to a systemd-free distro is often the better option. It took Devuan several years to make sure everything worked without systemd, for example.
>Slackware's not listed in there despite being the great old one of distros, AND not using SystemD

Come on man.
Replies: >>175
>including the devs calling people who don't use systemd sexists and racists
[citation needed]
Replies: >>169
Differen't inits didn't break stuff for me when I used Gentoo + OpenRC and Void + runit. Not sure about Devuan as I haven't used it yet.
Replies: >>165
I know for certain that Lennart Poettering called anti-systemd people sexists in a Google+, can't remember if he called them racists in that post too but it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm not an authority on non-systemd distros. I though NixOS didn't have systemd but apparently it does. I just gave a couple of distros off the top of my head.

Could someone tell me why a regular use would need systemd? I've never really used it but OpenRC does absolutely fine. I start, stop, and restart services. What else does a regular use want? I can understand maybe sysadmins want something more standardised.
Replies: >>181 >>187
>I can understand maybe sysadmins want something more standardised
That's the point. Instead of maintaining several different options, the board that maintains direction of essential Linux software development chose to just give Poetteringware reign over the ecosystem to streamline everything. Sysadmin or not, systemdick will get shoved down your throat and you will like it. This top-down direction of events is also why other Linux software devs started making systemd components a mandatory dependency, resulting in shims and hacks from distros like Debian, Artix etc. I understand the sysadmin reasons for the change: things like special snowflake boot and service management in enterprise setups coded by retarded pajeets. But this will result in never being able to switch off the One True Init System, even if it becomes completely ridden by exploits and bugs. OpenRC turns into a viable alternative for absolutely everyone? Too bad, it breaks policykitd, logond, whateverthefuckd and the entire kitchensinkd. And come on you guys, do you really want to reinvent the wheel again? Just let Lennart take care of things :^)

The future of Linux is a shittier Windows, because of zero security in window management systems still, which fucks desktop users (X or Wayland, doesn't matter) and no incredibly long backwards compatibility support despite fucking over the flexibility Linux offers over Windows, which fucks server operators.
[Hide] (823.1KB, 750x850)
Replies: >>186
Hoenstly, I don't hate systemd, the biggest issue is that it has become "standard" and retards have started to add systemd as a dependency for packages even when there's no reason it would be required. Live and let live.

if you want the unix way you should be using *bsd
Replies: >>208 >>1748
Doesn't OpenRC have a utility to convert systemd units to whatever mutant shell syntax it uses? It's not even about standardization, it's about freezing out small contributors so when something goes wrong you have to pay Red Hat to fix it.

Why would anyone want to use init system that includes stuff like (shitty) logging daemon, cron, sudo, bootloader, NTP client, etc. stuff that you don't need or even care about? The systemd developers downplay bugs (muh not a bug, muh wontfix) Also, remember when systemd developers tried to add their shitty and bioluminescent IPC (kdbus) into the Linux kernel? To make things even worse, IIRC, the only reason why systemdicks developers tried to push kdbus was that they were simply too lazy/incompetent to add some feature to systemd ("it should be called SystemD/Linux")
[Hide] (152.1KB, 1375x772)
Replies: >>1760
[Hide] (905.3KB, 676x626)
Replies: >>258 >>270 >>1761
2.1.35* my bad
Replies: >>259
Why 2.1.35? 2.1.15 can be emerged without systemd and rust.
Replies: >>264
2.1.15 has an issue with audio playing that isn't rectified until I think 2.1.16. And systemd and rust is required after 2.1.16. And also a ton of gay ass extensions require more recent versions. But anything above 2.1.16 would be good for me because that audio bug is atrocious. I use void, for a while I've been running Arch in a VM just to use Anki, occasionally seeing if I can figure out how to compile a recent version without much knowledge.
What's your distro? I made a dependency tree for Anki and the offenders are, as you've guessed, QT5 packages. Namely, qt5-base and qt5-webengine. But that's because they've been compiled to work with your distro's init, i.e. they depend on systemdicked dbus, util-linux and p11-kit. Unless they snuck something in their Rust code as well, any non-systemD distro that ships their own qt5 meta package with necessary flags (or you compile your own if you're on Gentoo) should support Anki. If compiling is not your thing, there is, for example, Artix.
You could prepare a separate installation of whatever distribution of GNU/Linux you prefer in a virtual machine dedicated to this purpose specifically which will have systemd so you can run anki in that machine, if you do not want systemd to touch your actual machine.
install gentoo
>systemd comes from redhat
>redhat not a free distro for ages
>suddenly things like debian forced into systemd
>even rapsberry pi zero has it when underpowered?

It's conspiracy tier bullshit and proprietary. Even if you don't know what it does intuition should make you question it's use. That and it came out late in the game, why suddenly did linux need this? 

Is bsd stuff even going to be  very usable at this point or do you have to be a super genius?
Replies: >>1751
Depending on use case, OpenBSD is quite usable, it takes about the same level l33tness to use it well as in Linux. But all of them are pozzed, OpenBSD wasn't, freebsd is the original SJW-pozzland and OBSD was forked from netbsd for its dramas.
If there's one thing I hate about bsd os,it would be their documentation. Everything about it is a fucking mess and not helping especially when you're a new user.
systemd is eating up Windows these days. RedHat managed the EEE the inventors of EEE.
You think that's bad,now read this
>Deployed one of the most comfiest DE out there known as the CDE (Common Desktop Environment)
>Post It in AUR, and it is the only package available for Arch fag. 
>Slap it with hard dependent systemd.
>Tried to install it anyway but removed the make dependency with systemd
>Shit installed with completely broken package
I wish there's a program that can remove all these hard dependent systemd on software package.
Replies: >>1838
Can one of you tell me the exact reason to hate system-d? I seriously know little about it, and never had issues with it. Except for the bootloader, holy crap that thing is garbage.
Replies: >>1832 >>1838 >>1840
For me, systemd is over-engineered and requires lots of reading to understand it well when I already know enough bash. Also fuck Pottering and (((Redhat))).
Replies: >>1838

What >>1832 said is a start for me.

The others are:
1. The people that are really singing the praises of this software seem to be very cultist-like people.
2. it creates a common point of weakness, when linux's biggest strength is that every single distro has elements that do different things.
3. It has the software-company issue of "fixing what was not broken just to give employees something to do".
4. the software is being engineered as a necessity that needs to be constantly run instead of something that can be run once, or run whenever/wherever/forever on the user's own time.
5. like >>1761 said, it's being arbitrarily applied to packages that have no need or reason to have it.
6. 95% of the linux-using population doesn't directly interact with systemD, and the people pushing for it are either stupid or (this is kinda tinfoily but logically-sound) paid by microsoft to deliberately sabotage Linux culture by creating a common attack point.
It's a new approach that has no desire to accommodate anything that's not SystemD, written in an era of move fast and break stuff faggotry. And it's going to be controlling your system. I'm sure it's better than maintaining SysVinit scripts made by some Dunning-Kruger victim though, which is why it's being adopted even without pressure from RedHat. Aside from the points already mentioned, it just feels annoying to be constantly gaslit by monkey brain nerds. It's a vicious cycle of: you don't need X component of SystemD, just turn it off; so what if library Y now requires component X, the alternatives were unsafe and poorly maintained; asking library devs to maintain backwards compatibility is toxic, they do it for free you know; SystemD isn't eating into userspace, stop spouting conspiracy theories; you don't need Z component of SystemD, just turn it off; etc.

The best part of SystemD are going to be the minimalistic rewrites taking the rare good parts of it and making sure libraries compiled against it work anyway, like how some distros do it with shims but hopefully less painful.

44 replies | 8 files
Show Post Actions



- news - rules - faq -
jschan 0.1.0