"Linux has systemd" and that's why the author didn't select it supposedly. I hear this line of thought from people that use FreeBSD often, although I suspect if you ask many of those people why systemd is so horrible you won't actually hear a legitimate (and still relevant) reason from them. I suggest anyone that thinks systemd is terrible and doesn't spend lots of time in Linux to watch this presentation by Benno Rice.https://youtu.be/o_AIw9bGogo
antranigv|5 years ago
I'm not against the "concept" of systemd, I think the BSDs need a "system" layer as well, just not systemd. The ideas are amazing, the implementation is the problem.
_lffv|5 years ago
Even if you don't like systemd (I don't but I live with it because I never have to interact with it anyway), this is such a weird way to phrase it. Imagine saying "Linux has `apt`, not my favorite thing out there. That left me with two major options: Linuxes without apt (Arch, in my case) or BSDs." Just... change the program. Apparently Arch can switch over to sysvinit just by installing two packages from the AUR (see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SysVinit), Devuan exists, et cetera.
Of course, the author was sold on BSD before making this argument - and fair enough, at least it's a free system. But in my opinion it's ridiculous to discount a family of systems because of one common program.
toast0|5 years ago
a) I ran into an issue with changes in startup scripts in Debian which meant I could no longer hit ctrl-c to stop network initialization on a laptop when it couldn't get a dhcp lease (it was either not connecting well to wifi , or trying to get a lease on a disconnected wired NIC; it was a while ago, I don't quite remember)
b) there have been many secuirty issues in systemd and systemd-* utilities. Quite a few of which were repeats of issues existing daemons had been through, that shouldn't have been repeated.
c) I have read that in default configurations a user's programs will be terminated after the user logs out; that's not acceptable for me, and a large change in default behavior
For me, systemd is yet another churny subsystem that drives aggrivation, so since I was already exposed to FreeBSD through work, it made sense to me to go in that direction at home, instead of sticking with Debian and accepting systemd.
gorgoiler|5 years ago
Realistically, it’s pretty snarky and unconvincing to all but the choir to whom he preaches.
ysleepy|5 years ago
The init system is nice, but why the hell does it re-implement svchost.exe
d21d3q|5 years ago
All configuration is done with .ini style files so that no need to use special parser for /etc/network/interfaces.
Disclaimer: I jumped on linux few years ago when systemd already had some momentum, so that I wasn't used to either init or systemd. I found the later easier to pick up.
1_player|5 years ago
systemd-timesyncd is inferior to what? a fully fledged ntpd? go ahead, use that if you really need to, but on 99% of Linux machines systemd-timesyncd is enough.
chmln|5 years ago
I use resolved and timesyncd however and they work amazing for my basic needs on the laptop.
nix23|5 years ago
That's BS and you know it.