←back to thread

466 points CoolCold | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.903s | source
Show context
kbar13 ◴[] No.40208219[source]
systemd has been a net positive for the linux ecosystem. remember when you had to write bash scripts to start, stop, restart services and handle any other signals you want to send it? nowadays it's a unit file (basically just an ini file) away with relatively straightforward API. and you can actually declare startup dependencies and other useful relationships past just "prepend a number signifying when it should run globally to the front of the filename". it's provided an extensible platform with which higher level orchestration frameworks like ansible / ignition can easily templatize services or other system configuration.

since the beginning of systemd people have moaned about how complex it is and how we're reinventing the wheel. yet time and time again the people actually working on the project show that the solution they've come up with is the result of the problem they're facing on a daily basis. it's quite annoying that the armchair linux experts complain about how "lol systemd is so stupid for reinventing the wheel, give me my shell scripts back", maybe think about whether or not you have a legitimate issue not being addressed by the solution proposed or if you are just getting rage baited by a headline.

replies(17): >>40208249 #>>40208286 #>>40208374 #>>40208481 #>>40209110 #>>40209185 #>>40212620 #>>40212965 #>>40214704 #>>40214800 #>>40214923 #>>40215163 #>>40215552 #>>40215793 #>>40216445 #>>40217144 #>>40217617 #
Faaak ◴[] No.40208286[source]
Yeah, basically I've found that the people the more vocal against systemd are either not really knowing how it works behind the scenes, and just criticizing for the sake of it (or because other people do so), or criticizing from an ideological point of view (do one thing and do it well). They see systemd as an octopus, not following the unix ideology. Which I don't really agree tbh
replies(4): >>40208422 #>>40209002 #>>40212740 #>>40218038 #
StimDeck[dead post] ◴[] No.40209002[source]
[flagged]
growse ◴[] No.40209034[source]
I think dynamic linking pre-dates systemd by quite a number of years.
replies(1): >>40209169 #
StimDeck ◴[] No.40209169[source]
SSH being linked to XZ doesn’t.
replies(3): >>40209743 #>>40214774 #>>40214989 #
growse ◴[] No.40209743[source]
So aim your ire at the distributions who (I agree) cocked this one up. "Take a library dependency to implement basic functionality" is not a systemd mentality, it's pernicious throughout software development - see leftPad as another example.
replies(2): >>40215111 #>>40215112 #
1. immibis ◴[] No.40215112[source]
"Put everything in one big ball" is systemd mentality AND something that enabled the xz exploit to work.
replies(1): >>40216864 #
2. growse ◴[] No.40216864[source]
Lots of things enabled the xz exploit to work.

If the lesson you take from xz is "systemd bad" then you've really missed the wood for the trees.

replies(1): >>40217338 #
3. immibis ◴[] No.40217338[source]
It's one of many things to consider. Think of it as sandboxing, or attack surface reduction. Should we expose everything to everything else, or should it be on a need-to-know basis?