• 3 Posts
  • 348 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 24th, 2026

help-circle





  • I too have started using linux some time before systemd adoption, but because my work involved a lot of system administration and infrastructure administration simplicity of sysv-style and bsd-style inits was detrimental to my mental health, so when systemd came it was something from another world, tickled me just right and documentation was insanely good and detailed, and it absolutely changed everything. There is also an obvious problem of people reductively thinking of systemd project as a whole as an init system, it isn’t just that it’s a system management system and it works great. Other systems just doesn’t use what linux provides and instead reiterate on old designs.


  • It wasn’t because it’s true. They are literally separate utilities. Many is exactly two (i think) busybox and whatever the other one is called. For vast majority of people and in context it should be obvious that coreutils I was referring to is GNU coreutils, you are being intentionally obtuse. There are three, I believe, mandatory parts that fall under systemd umbrella everything else is either optional or separate. Interdependency angle is disengenious at best, programs can and have dependencies, it’s laughable that you think that they aren’t separate utilities because they depend on other utility.

    Forced hegemony I’m dying lol.





  • You get less control actually. Like you can’t even do basic things (capabilities per daemon, limits per daemon, isolation, etc.) with old-school inits. Won’t even start on security features allowed to units by systemd.

    If by control you mean you can write your own logic in an initscript, then yes you probably can, but it’s still limited (never tried runit, but on old rhels and debian they were) by other tooling that expects script to behave in a particular way. You can still obviously do it with systemd by calling your script.