chrissywissy wrote:The OP has effectively admitted that he is just having a rant, as he doesn't want to file a bug report for his particular problem.
...
Everyone likes progress, but few like change....
A rant? Somewhat, yes. systemd pissed me off because it continually f'ed up a system that was doing pretty much nothing except basic filesystem operations and by doing so risking the integrity of the data. But there was another purpose: To let those who may be on the fence about systemd know it has yet another problem.
You may ask: Why not file a bug? Some even have a silly tendency to discount my mention of an issue merely because I didn't file one.
I definitely could. Hell, I'm a developer and I could probably fix it myself. But...let me digress for a second...I'll come back to this.
Your last stement is a sweeping generalization I see a lot: That people who dislike systemd do so because they fear/dislike change (another is that they are old unix greybeards). There are some that may fit this stereotype, but the truth is that there are plenty of people (many developers) who dislike it because they see in it some of the worst traits of badly designed software. The links I've listed previously contain quite a number of well-thought out technical reasons for disliking systemd for those who care to read. I will not repeat them here.
So why not file a bug or fix it myself? Because (to me) it would be wasted effort. From personal experience, fixing bugs in badly designed software generally leads nowhere good...it's like standing on the deck of the Titanic and bailing with a bucket. Simply put: I have better things to do. I am not dependent on systemd in any way, so it doesn't matter to me if it is ever fixed and I'd rather see a better designed alternative get fixes instead.
debiman wrote:
hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!
it must be flawed!
i think that "holds true" for any software, init- , operating system.
Bugs are flaws...yes...and all complex software has them. However a lot of the dislike for systemd is not really about bugs. Bugs are just a symptom. The real problem is a flawed design. Despite some people claiming no evidence is ever given for this, there is plenty of information out there for those who look. I've linked to some of it.
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
As an aside, I really don't understand why those who claim that systemd violates the UNIX way then embrace sysvint happily, the latter transgresses the "do one thing well" rule in exactly the same way as is
claimed for systemd
It's a matter of scale. systemd is far worse than sysvinit in terms of cyclomatic complexity, which can only be a bad thing for PID1. It also promotes creating crazy-ass dependencies in upstream projects:
https://github.com/tmux/tmux/issues/428. But your reply brings up a great point: systemd proponents often paint everything in terms of the false dichotomy between systemd and sysvinit. There are alternatives, many of them better than either. To claim no one is making alternatives to systemd is a flat out lie that gets repeated quite often.
My advice would be for people to read both the pro and con information out there. If you have the background, read the source for systemd and a few of the alternatives. Actually try the alternatives. Decide for yourself and don't let fanbois or haterz make the decision for you.