linuxmemes

Use systemd if you want. It's not perfect, but nothing is. There are certainly good reasons to use systemd, including, but not limited to, that it's the default on most distros and you don't want to mess with init systems. My only complaint is that too much software and documentation is written with the expectation that you have systemd for no good reason, which makes it harder to leave, which makes more people stick with it, which is an excuse to neglect support for other init systems even more.

If you try to switch a distro that's already using Systemd to some other init system, you'll have so many broken things to fix!

It's not systemd doing all the things completely unrelated to system initialization that it does that I have a problem with. It's systemd doing them worse than the existing tools that do those things that the systemd equivalents replace and Lennart Poettering being completely unable to fathom why anyone would ever want to use any piece of software other than his. systemd talks big game about being modular, but makes breaking changes to how those modules communicate without warning anyone, so if you dare to be a "systemd hater" as he calls them and replace one of those modules with an equivalent he isn't involved with, Heaven help you when he breaks the API of systemd that they hook into and the developers of your equivalent scramble to implement the binary protocol he thought up yesterday so that their alternative continues to work.

I don't want software on my system that is managed like that. It's the same reason I prefer Firefox over anything Chromium based.

If you actually want a reason, then most people experience faster boot up times using runit instead of Systemd. I haven't tried it yet though.

Fun. You can dick around with your init scripts without having to worry about the right triggers or spawn classes or anything. Your system is hackable with bash. Systemd: here are a list of approved keywords, don't insert that there, why are using cron when you can use me?

Systemd, as a replacement init system, is fine-ish. It's sometimes slow and when it decides a service is lost there's not much to do aside from killing the thing and restarting it.

Systemd, the full blown ecosystem that wants to replace literally everything by systemd-thesamethingasbeforebutfromscratch however, invites scepticism, especially when there are no particular flaws in the existing versions of things. DNS resolution, DHCP clients, NTP sync, etc. worked perfectly well.

My Nvidia card says no to Wayland+KDE :( incredibly laggy and unresponsive ui

I wish it worked well on my system

Yes, very sad. Anyway.

I, for one, welcome our new systemd overlords...

Now I want to do some PRs for systemD.

This was an excellent listen, thank you for the link. I had no idea what was involved in it when I started, nor the roles of initd and launchd before it and what systemd was trying to replace.

The funny thing is that the guy giving the talk, Benno Rice, is primarily FreeBSD/openRC and not Linux, so he seemed fairly agnostic in presenting the various sides, not just from Unix and then Linux but also from the Apple viewpoint, who have also been playing a kind of parallel but separate role in this.

Very cool. Not a beginner level talk, definitely, but there was nothing I couldn't figure out coming from Windows/Mac tech. Really informative, thank you again.

It is between systemc and systeme

Oversimplified: It's the service that handles starting and stopping of other services, including starting them in the right order after boot. Many people hate it because of astrology and supersticion. Allegedly it's "bloated". But still it has become the standard on many (most?) distros, effectively replacing init.

I like init. It's simple. I like systemd as well. It's convenient. Beyond that i don't have very strong feelings on the matter.

Also, see important answer by topinambour-rex.

• systemd is an init system commonly used in distros like Linux Mint, Arch, Manjaro, Ubuntu, Debian, etc.

• init systems have a process id of 1 and manage services like a login manager, network, firewall service, etc.

• a process id is assigned to every process in a linux system.

the average user usually doesn't worry about the init system, although more experienced/techy users may care about it.

To be fair, while it's the Libreboot creator's project and they can do whatever they want with it, I can see why people are upset that Libreboot has had the "Libre" in it's name seemingly neglected.

The FSF is an ideological organisation. It's important that they exist. It's also important that pure free software exists. Pragmatism is also important, but without any purity, the "extreme" of software freedom gets watered down, and so the window of an "acceptable" amount of proprietary-ness shifts as a new, less hardline "extreme" takes it's place, if that makes sense. We should be striving for full software freedom, even if it's currently just a dream.

Libreboot was a pure libre software project. Now it isn't. Originally, a fork called osboot was created with the new blob reduction policy. That was fine, because it was a different name that didn't mislead (also because nobody knew osboot as the fully free BIOS replacement). Then that policy became Libreboot policy. Libreboot is no longer fully libre, despite it having been exactly that for it's whole life. It had an established name as the fully free BIOS replacement. It was known for that. Hence the upset.

Also, I see Canoeboot as a success. Rowe seems to be doing it out of spite, but it's achieved what the GNU project wants. It has successfully pushed Rowe to at least provide some sort of fully free release again.