I have a perfectly fine desktop computer that runs Arch (systemd) and LXDE. I'm just some joe user

Web server, huh? I guess that goes along with "wanting" the added "security" of compiling systemd against selinux. I get suspicious when I see things like systemd and pam compiled against selinux (IE Redhat, Ubuntu).

One of the bluetooth stacks now wants some systemd libraries... and yes, there is a big push to incorporate it, it seems.

It should be noted that Ubuntu is very much build on technologies primarily developed by Red Hat, whether it's ripped out systemd components like systemd-{udev,logind,timedated,hostanmed,localed}, NetworkManager (or ConnMan in the future but I would imagine Intel to care even less about non-systemd systems on Linux), upower, udisks... so it kinda does matter. It will be interesting to see if they adopt systemd in the future too.

Yeah... it might have something to do with GPL free userspace.

Incorporate Bluez to systemd? That's not going to happen nor would it make any sense. Bluez probably does take use of systemd-udev and systemd-logind though but I would imagine both to optional or at least the latter.

Great. Just great. User experience doesn't count? I tried it for 2 months without biased opinions and grow to hate it doesn't count? And in the end I need to write a thesis to tell you why it's crappy? Why don't you write a thesis to tell me why systemd is needed in the first place to begin with? It's not much faster compared to sysV at boot up if you are running on SSD. the list of useless features could go on for pages, but I guess that doesn't count either? The zero day exploits are real. The fact that it was fixed doesn't mean it's safe. I'm telling you that with all this spaghetti and complexity and plagiarism of other packages, we will run into countless zero day exploits. Some will surface, but most will be used for a long long time by hackers. Is there a need to deal with all this vulnerabilities for 2 secs worth of faster boot up? But I guess that doesn't count either.

One thing you said right. Opinions doesn't count in this case. I'm beginning to realize that. $ counts. And that is why we need to become like M$ and increase our user base by hiding everything under the hood of systemd. After years of moving forward, now we are telling linux users that you don't actually need that control over your O/S or computers. You are fine with just what we give you. And most importantly, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. Real nice. I believe that is totally in the spirit of free community.

If I truly want M$ crap, I would pay for it. I dun need another version of M$ that is 'free'. But I know that that doesn't count either.

3 members found this post helpful.

i get the feeling folks try to make linux more windows to get more windows users over to linux.. i think these folks take the wrong approach!

but.. could we not just stop here and leave the systemd fight be?

i think all points are sayd!

btw. im still wondering about the "people needing to reinvent things" thingy.

i know now, what patrick did mean when he sayd we shell not start another systemd thread!

You should probably start from writing why you think the user experience wasn't good. Bashing projects without giving a reason why is just weak. If you don't have anything meaningful to say, then you probably shouldn't.

Well you could start off by reading at least the said Debian initsystem debate page or various other posts on why distributions, like Arch, moved to systemd.

The countless user experiences on various forums and my personal experience is quite different. But sure the difference on desktop systems is relatively small because most time (especially on systemd systems) is spend on starting the user session that systemd currently doesn't handle (it will in near future though). Still the technology is there.

If you consider stuff likekilling services reliably, awesome tools like the systemctl status command, accessible unit files and socket driven boot "useless" then fine. That just doesn't reflect the reality.

Quit with the straw mans. systemd isn't nor hasn't ever been about just proving faster boot. Yes, security issues do exist but that applies to virtually all software. systemd provides quite a few features for securing the services you run, where the security issues are most likely, for example:

-Debian initsystem debate on systemd

You seem to live in the world where bashing open source projects and developers is OK but actually developing open source software is not. Makes sense I guess.

...and this is why it's so damn hard to take you guys seriously.

All in all, you are free to use whatever you like. If you don't like systemd, distributions that don't use it will always exist. You obviously don't get the features that it offers but that doesn't seem to bother you anyway. However what you shouldn't do is make baseless claims and spread FUD about projects you don't understand and haven't done even the most basic research on. But yeah, I think we are pretty much done here. Lets see if I ever get lost here again...

1 members found this post helpful.

You seem to live in a world that joining a forum just to bash people is OK. Makes sense because that is what you did. From 'us guys' that you can't take seriously, which includes people on both sides of the systemd fiasco, please do not come back.

3 members found this post helpful.

That is exactly the F up attitude that I am referring to. What I said is not meaningful because I don't support your cause? Real mature. For every thread that you post, I can find an equivalent that says why systemd is badly designed and poorly executed. You simply fixed that which is not broken.

I have and I know that all the hype about how systemd is is that it's trying to integrate everything that is already there and is functioning perfectly. Nobody is interested in maintaining and improving the existing software that are good. Instead, we should try to reinvent the wheels, add additional layers to every critical piece of software that exist and try to market it as an awesome new product.


you can disagree with me. That's what open debate is about. And I do not think that you have taken any of us seriously. Sorry, but I do not sugarcoat my opinions about lousy implementations. And you can ignore that too.

Agreed. Which is why I'm sticking to slackware.


With all the "features" that you boost about in systemd, I would like to remind you that a vulnerability in systemd, unlike pulseaudio, is all the more critical.

I know that you are also not interested in writing a thesis and hence leaving. Good bye.

I guess you've had better experience with systemd. Do you shutdown your system on a daily basis? I find that if I shutdown and startup on a daily basis, it works ok except for a few rare occasions that it hangs on boot. However, if i keep it running for a continuous period of time, it will freeze for no apparent reason and I need to perform a hard reset. I do not think this is ok for server applications. Even as a desktop system, it should not be freezing. To me, that is tantamount to the infamous BSOD.

I have also heard of plans for a fork of Arch because of systemd. Haven't seen anything tangible thhus far though.

No I don't shut down any computer everyday, I don't have issues with hanging either during boot or while running..

It's no kidding just a computer that does what I want it to do it requires no thought or work.

Noted and thanks for the reply.

If it's any consolation I have an LFS box chugging along with RunIt working fairly well without any hiccups either. Boots decent in speed and services work. Had to hand write a few scripts that didn't exist, but I got it all configured and working within a day.

Doesn't even require that damned PAM library either... nor dbus, libcap, attr, or any of that other unwarranted list of libraries and dependencies systemd wants and requires.

3 members found this post helpful.

[Duplicate post]

1 members found this post helpful.

Rule #377: Never describe software as "awesome".