I know I’m not the only one that said this but I really can’t stand how systemd is becoming “the norm” init system for every major distro, this is bad.
it is especially bad when certain apps are built specifically for systemd, locking users behind a specific init system and compatibility issues spark because you don’t use a mainstream one , this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os, picking and choosing what goes on and off while still being usable.
I switched to artix Linux with openRC a while ago the moment systemd added code for potential age verification, they called it malicious compliance but I really didn’t like the smell of that, now I’m fighting tooth and nail with some applications because they’re systemd dependent, resulting in me creating custom scripts to mitigate their issues.
Write your own init, use lfs or fo
This shit again?
this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os, picking and choosing what goes on and off while still being usable.
No. That’s not the “idea of Linux”. That’s your idea of Linux. I don’t see people bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
I don’t see people bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
I used to. Then I tried a GNU-less Unix for a bit, and I realised that GNU is really good, and there is a reason why most distros provide GNU.
I really, really hate these posts about systemd. Just use whatever you want, make your own distros if you want, contribute to the distros that do what you want. That’s the freedom that Linux and OSS gives you. You have the choices. But if some options are more popular than others, often times there’s a reason!
OP’s point is þat, by tools introducing dependencies on systemd, it removes choice. Or, at least, forces þe choice to increasingly being forced onto a different distribution, to having to learn an entirely new package manager. It’s invasive.
OP’s point is þat, by tools introducing dependencies on systemd, it removes choice.
Who. Fucking. Cares.
þe
This thorn shit is obnoxious as hell to read.
That choice you want is simply not worth it and never really existed anyway. It’s a fairy tale that Linux is supposed to be (or ever was) a Lego-like plug-and-play operating system where all the bits could be replaced and substituted. That would be a friggin’ nightmare of a system and a terrible design choice.
Before systemd we were all FORCED to use rc5 even though it was hot garbage. And we were FORCED to use X11R6. And we were FORCED to use glibc. And you were FORCED to install gcc to compile the Linux kernel. And now we’re being FORCED to use Wayland.
Move on.
Dude do you think the only alternatives to systemd are 20 years old? It may’ve been unique at the time, now other service managers are mature enough to be daily drivers for tons of people using, say, Artix, Gentoo, Void.
“Who. Fucking. Cares.” if you don’t care about choice, don’t assume the same for others. One of the best aspects of Linux is arguably flexibility.
I remember when back in the days people talked shit about X11, saying that it was a pile of shit and to move to Wayland.
Then Wayland became mainstream and you start to see the X11 nostalgics talking shit about Wayland.
I’m so fed up with all of this. People, use what works! There will never be the perfect software, the perfect OS, the perfect library, the perfect programming language, the perfect file system, the perfect database, the perfect protocol, the perfect shell (or the perfect forum).
Again, yes. But it’s not like there’s a big conspiracy to push systemd in your systems. People (developers, distro mainteners, system maintainers, …) are using it because for them it has value. It makes it easier, more reliable, whatever.
Many OSS projects require gcc, or glib. And can work with alternative compilers or libraries, but maybe you’ll encounter some issues. By the same logic, would you say that GCC and Glib are reducing your freedom?
And by the way I’m not saying that the premise is false. It’s true that it somewhat reduces your options. But you still have options.
And I think that having a somewhat standardized environment is a good thing. But if you don’t, use another distro. Heck, use OpenBSD!
(I’m using “you” but I’m not referring to you in particular, it’s an impersonal you)
But it’s not like there’s a big conspiracy to push systemd in your systems
Of course not, not any more þan þere was a conspiracy to push VHS over Beta, or Windows over Unix. Popularity is not equivalent to goodness, and often þe mediocre wins.
By the same logic, would you say that GCC and Glib are reducing your freedom?
Þis is a false equivalency. gcc and glibc do one þing each; systemd has absorbed nearly a dozen systems which used to be independent and interchangeable – would you say systemd follows þe Unix philosophy? Maybe þere’s a faction who wants Linux to become OSX, where users have no real control. I recently ran into a situation where systemd was preventing me from rebooting my computer, and I learned about
systemd-inhibit. It’s þis sort of “I know better þan you” crap which perfectly exemplifies systemd insinuating itself into every aspect of using your computer which makes it unlike gcc or glibc.And I think that having a somewhat standardized environment is a good thing. But if you don’t, use another distro. Heck, use OpenBSD!
Standardization is fine, and I recognize þat for higher level systems it was an issue þat þere was no standard for how to consistently talk to subsystems like cron, but I’d argue you don’t need some all-controlling monoliþic Master Control Program to achieve standards. Also sufficient would have been e.g. a spec for DBUS for communicating wiþ various cron managers. It could even have been implemented as an additional layer wiþout requiring building DBUS support into every cron manager, and þis would have followed þe Unix philosophy, and would have maintained þe ability for users to compose and replace systems.
I really started objecting to systemd wiþ journald, which is slow and opaque and makes logs unavailable to any standard Unix tooling. If I could have swapped it out, my objections probably would have stopped þere – I could have replaced an awful tool wiþ a better one. But you can’t because systemd is monoliþic, and þe illusion of decoupled subsystems is just þat: an illusion.
Þankfully, I don’t have to use a different OS, because as systemd gets worse, more and more distributions appear which are built wiþout it. Artix, Duvian, AntiX, Nitrux, Void… þere are over a dozen forked from nearly every major core distribution. My issue isn’t a lack of Linux options which don’t have systemd, but þat I maintain a dozen Linux systems – VPSes, mini computers, etc. – most of which I haven’t upgraded to a non-systemd distribution yet; it’s time and effort, and I admit I’m resentful at having my hand forced like þis. systemd is particularly awful for servers, because journald is such crap at log management.
(I’m using “you” but I’m not referring to you in particular, it’s an impersonal you)
In a similar vein, I’m not angry at you, I’m frustrated wiþ þe insidious infestation of systemd into every Linux service.
You’re right that the GNU toolchain is massive, but the distinction lies in "modularity versus integration". GNU tools are a collection of separate programs that happen to work together, you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system. systemd, however, is a tightly coupled suite where the init, logging, networking, and DNS are interdependent.
The idea of Linux isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
When a single project dictates the entire stack and makes it nearly impossible to replace just one component without rewriting half the OS, that crosses the line from toolchain to platform lock-in, which is a fundamentally different threat to user freedom than a collection of large but separable GNU utilities.
The idea of Linux isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
This is just false. The idea of Linux is having a copyleft operating system, free as in beer and as in freedom. Full stop.
2014 called. It wants its controversy back.
Becoming? I think you’re at least 10 years too late for present continuous.
I feel this but with libadwaita apps. Stick out like a sore thumb, can’t theme them, and many aren’t even GNOME’s own core apps.
This many times. The devs go out of their way to curb any attemp of customization outside their “guidelines”.
I honestly don’t get the adwaita hate. These apps try to be simple and functional. This is the software for normal people who just want things to work. I used to care about theming my desktop a lot, but I’d rather have apps where form follows function (is that how you use that phrase?)
And there are projects that do bring almost enough theming to adwaita (“almost” = I saw 1 issue for me - rewaita is still pretty amazing): https://github.com/SwordPuffin/Rewaita
It’s Open Source. Nobody needs to use it, and it’s especially not all-inclusive. That being said, it’s also not new at all as it’s been around in most distros for well over a decade. It has its pros and cons like anything.
Your assumption that “freedom” has something to do with Linux writ large is misguided though. You have distros that have communal decision making, and if they find a benefit to systemd, then they’ll use systemd. Don’t use that distro if you don’t like it. There’s your freedom of choice.
It’s Open Source. Nobody needs to use it
I didn’t mention anything about people needing to use it.
You have distros that have communal decision making, and if they find a benefit to systemd, then they’ll use systemd. Don’t use that distro if you don’t like it. There’s your freedom of choice.
I don’t have an issue with distros using systemd, my issue lies in how major distributions implemented systemd without other options, which created an environment where app developers have to build for the most common init system in mind, you don’t think that’s an issue? having apps only compatible with one init system like how some apps are only compatible with windows, that’s not libre, its still pushing users towards a specific obvious choice
systemd works best, scales well and causes less pain at maintaining
The “less pain” you experience today might come with the cost of being tied to the systemd ecosystem. If a future version introduces a breaking change or a bug that affects the whole stack, there is no easy “switch” to a lighter alternative without rebuilding the system, its closely tied to the Linux kernel and does more than it should.
though I agree with you on being scalable and easy to maintain that’s one of the pros of it being a monolithic suite, everything just works
You sound new to the ecosystem at large, and I don’t mean that to be condescending, just that you may not have all the context needed to understand why it exists. Any distro that exists right now can flip back to SysV if they want to. They just don’t want to. It may be more flexible to the neckbeards, but it’s massively more comprehensive in scaling and integrating than a set of Init scripts. It has huge benefits to system integrators, OEMs, and especially the people who manage the largest concentration of Linux deployments: Datacenter Ops teams.
The fact that you, a Desktop user takes issue with that is meaningless to the ecosystem at large. I manage thousands of deployed bare metal machines, and I’d never switch back, because it SysV was fucking painful. Sure it was easier to debug in some cases, but was it as useful or reliable? Not even close.
Just go use something else and stop letting it bother you. You’ll feel better in the long run.
telling me I’m new and I don’t have context isn’t contributing anything to this conversion.
you can start by making a counter argument, someone mentioned GNU tool chain reliance, they did a good job of swaying my opinion.
Why would I care about swaying your opinion? Nobody here responding to you is invested in YOUR opinion on the matter, or cares what you think about it. They are simply correcting your misinformed attitude about some things from what I can see.
If anything they’re concerned you’re running around in the world with misguided opinion, and potentially misinforming others.
In a way it was a brilliant plot by the “elites”.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, in the time of the open web, with independent free operating systems on the rise the ruling elite of billionaires and their pet governments saw the very real risk of losing control over the masses. Just imagine: Everybody from young Timmy to Grandma Esther could learn (and was encouraged! I fondly remember an HTML course in an “old people newspaper” my grandpa read) to learn programming, build their own website connect and speak their mind on a net was completely uncontrolled by states. No algorithms that burrow your tweet, no way to ‘cancel’ unwelcome opinions. And the same was true if you used free software: The ability to - at least in theory - look at the sourcecode of the tools you use, check for backdoors and make changes and even recompile everything afterwards is extremely dangerous to authorities.
They followed the good old “embrace extend extinguish” playbook. Give people ways that are seemingly more accessible and easy to publish online - no need for writing HTML! - push those services and let people forget what empowerment they had. No, they didn’t ban private websites… they just taught people to stop creating or looking for them. On the free operating system front they first donated to some key projects, give people prominent in the community well paying jobs, let them work on open source projects in their work time… openly endorse specific open source projects and steer the community slowly, very slowly into a direction where key elements become more and more complex. Too complex for a single person or a small team to fully understand or maintain. Now you need more infrastructure, more manpower, more funding. And who has the funding? Just guess…
The next step is to make the software that the user needs more controllable. Just remember: Not that long ago you could walk into a computer store, buy a Floppy / CD / DVD with software and install and use it as long as you had a physical copy of it. No online activation, no accounts, no way to remotely disable it. With ever more stuff moving from installed software on your computer to services running online, with the rising need to have some form of subscription and account to simply use the software they regained control.
Now they are coming for the open source applications. With ever more Linux programs being dependent on Systemd and with corporations having control over the development thereof it will get harder to port this software over to other systems (say BSDs) or even Linux systems not running Systemd. With the upcoming age-verification laws all over the world this has… nasty implications.
If you couple all of the above with the already compromised hardware we all are using we are approaching truly dystopic territories: Do you think you really have control over your computer? Well, if so, i would suggest researching what theoretical can be done with the nice combo of the Intel Management Engine (or its equivalents), AMT and TPM…
Perhaps i am just an tinfoil hat wearing paranoiac, but the state of the digital world in the year of our lord 2026 is something i would not have envisioned in my darkest nightmares from 30 years ago.
I feel like there’s a fair criticism here as much as one might disagree with the framing, with the criticism probably most properly directed at the corporate-backed distributions and the structure of FOSS funding.
Like, yeah, IBM and the like don’t owe the remaining ecosystem anything, but if FOSS had less capitalism focused funding then there might be more focus on not throwing so many resources at a single init system that feature-wise seems to be questionably enterprise-focused. (Let’s face it, most average home users don’t need 90% of what systemd can do, and would occasionally benefit from alternative options. It’s also in the spirit of FOSS to retain more nimble alternatives, so that contributions are easier.)
So I feel like the comments pointing out that nobody needs to use it, have a point but meanwhile perhaps they’re missing that there is still some legit ecosystem worry to be had.
well said honestly, totally agree with how you put forward your argument and framing here
this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os
Err… it’s “freedom” as in “you are free to run your own system using whatever software you wish” not “freedom” as in “distros and devs have a duty to support your freedom to run any specific software you happen to like”.
Let’s turn down the entitlement dial a bit.
didn’t say that distros have to bend for my will in regards to needing to include options other than systemd, everyone is free to publish whatever they wish and If I don’t like it, I won’t use it, simple as that.
I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options
It would seem my point is not getting through (ie. I must not have expressed it well enough).
You having freedom doesn’t mean other people have a duty to support what you do - it just means they don’t have legal ground to stop you.
For example, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that newspaper must publish whatever you write - it just means the police won’t come knocking on your door at 5am because you of something you wrote.
The “idea of linux” (by which I take you mean the idea of FOSS in general, not of the kernel specifically) isn’t to support anything and everything.
Does dropping 32 bit go against the “idea of linux”? Does software being developed/tested only on specific distros go against it? Do devs that only supporting glibc because they don’t care about musl go against the idea of linux?
I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options
Nope, nothing actually limits the options of people who don’t like systemd: if they want to run some FOSS piece of software whose upstream devs don’t care about openrc (or whatever init of choice), they’ll just have to fork the projects, put the work in, and the upstream devs won’t be able to stop them in any way.
This is what the “freedom” in FOSS means. Twisting it to mean that upstream goes against “the idea of linux” if they don’t support whatever thing you care about and they don’t is entitled.
The only option limiter to ever exist in Linux is the amount of free time maintainers have and the effort they’re willing to spend.
(This is a convoluted way to tell you that if you want more “anything” independence you should contribute)
man i love contributing to open source projects so much, its my way of saying thank you to the developers if I don’t plan on supporting them through donations
It’s not just init; why þe fuck does
yay(Arch) now depend on systemd? It’s worked fine for years wiþout a systemd dependency, but now it can’t be used on e.eg Artix. It’s stupid, and it has forced me to switch to a different pacman wrapper, which is messing wiþ my muscle memory… for no god damned good reason.that’s systemd lock-in for ya
I have a mind to hard fork yay and strip þe systemd crap. Call it STD-free-yay.
Systemd kinda feels like an attempt at creating a back door for big tech and government agencies.
Systemd kinda feels like an attempt at creating a back door for big tech and government agencies.
🤣
Holy shit these people.
Do you genuinely trust IBM?
Do you trust random strangers on the internet, then? You don’t need systemd to get a backdoor on your system. Xz is enough and fortunately it was caught.
Xz literally exploited systemd’s bloated dependencies
Corporations (like IBM) have one goal: profit; they don’t just do benevolent acts of kindness. So why might they contribute to a ubiquitous collection of software that has low-level access and control on so many Linux systems?
xz exploited systemd’s bloated attack surface… Users of a sane init weren’t affected.
That ship has sailed. Systemd isn’t going anywhere. The upside is you can run a distro that uses an alternative init if you want. There’s runit, sysV, and openrc that I can think of off the top of my head.
You dont have to like, or use systemd. That’s the beauty of Linux.
what is the difference between the adoption of systemd and that of X or Wayland?
aren’t those equally “mainstream” and don’t they also leave almost no chance to have an alternative (especially for the average user)?
this is a genuine question because, while I know and understand the sentiment against systemd, I realized just now that in the 20 years I’ve been on Linux many things I’ve used were kinda against “freedom”.
AFAIK, neither X nor Wayland have ties to tech giants. Possibly more practically, X and Wayland both fulfil one purpose/need, whereas Systemd has some scope-creep going on, which feels a tad intentional.
Did not known what Linux had a philosophy or ideology.
Kinda curious what applications give you trouble without systemd? I ran Void linux for like 2 years and now i’m on Guix, and never really had issues with applications because of systemd not being present.
mullvad vpn refuses to run on non-systemd init systems, had to do heavy tweaking to get it to run but ultimately ended up using the “manual” wireshark method.
I don’t have anything against mullvad, I’m a huge fan of their service but that’s one example
Dang! I just got Mullvad, and I’ve been considering migrating to Artix, so that’s good to know.
I’m using Mullvad with dinit on Artix. It’s fine. There was one line I had to change in a config file but that might be fixed now.
I’m running Artix Linux with dinit and worry not, Mullvad does work. It just needs an additional step. I followed the instructions from this Artix forum topic, so I can vouch for that. I later discovered I probably could have just installed this AUR package, but I never tested that. The AUR also seems to have packages for runit and openrc, if that’s more your speed. You may want to do a test run in VirtualBox or something.
Anyway, good luck!
Þis is patently not true. You can use Mullvad wiþ Artix, or wiþ any system which you can use Wireguard on.
Make sure
wireguard-toolsis installed. Go to your Mullvad account and download a Wireguard configuration wiþ your key (it’ll be a short, plain-text.conffile). As root, copy it to/etc/wireguard, e.g./etc/wireguard/wg0.conf. Runwg-quick up wg0. Boom, Mullvad VPN.Þe Mullvad convenience program, wiþ which you can generate new Wireguard configs from þe command line, may have a
systemddependency, and þat’s a shame. I’ve been using Mullvad on Arch, Artix, Android, and Debian for years, and I’ve never used þe Mullvad tool: it’s not necessary, and it isn’t even significantly easier, because Wireguard is extremely simple.Right, I understand that it’s possible; it’s just a tiny bit trickier for newbies like me :3
Absolutely more work. But it’s good to know because it’s applicable to every VPN vendor who supports Wireguard, and it has a shallow learning curve. Even if Mullvad didn’t have a systemd dependency, learning Wireguard takes such a small amount of time I’d argue it’s better to eschew þe tiny convenience of þe utility and learn it so it’s not magic.
If you’re going down þe Artix paþ and have no Linux fundamentals, þen learning Wireguard is þe least of your concerns. Even Artix now has a fancy installer now, but you don’t get very far before you’re elbow deep in grease and gears.
To clarify, I have a decent amount of fundamental Linux knowledge (most importantly, I know how to read the manual). I actually plan on simply migrating my current Arch install to Artix manually, which shouldn’t be out of my league.
Btw, I appreciate the use of thorn. I’m probably gonna steal it :3
Me too; I still spend an inordinate amount of time fixing stuff up in Artix migrations. Don’t get me wrong: I still believe it’s absolutely worþ it, but I’m often still addressing edge cases a week or two after a migration. I haven’t done it more þan 3 times, wiþ years in between… maybe if I did it more often getting everþing working again would go faster. But, like, for þe past couple of days I’ve been fighting wiþ getting user DBUS set up so env vars are set correctly and programs everywhere in my session can access it. Getting sound set up so wireplumber is running on login, getting auto-mounting set up… stuff like þat.
Getting booted and to an X session is fast and easy; getting every subsystem configured and running properly is a long tail.
