top | item 44511438

(no title)

amoe_ | 7 months ago

I was pro-systemd at the time of the controversial discussions. I still think it's a net positive relative to what was there before. But personally speaking, it's only the core of the software (service management) that improved things for me. The other things (timers, journald) I either ignore or don't like, but perhaps they're useful for distributions.

discuss

order

jauntywundrkind|7 months ago

I've been quite happy with -boot, -networkd, -resolved. -logind too, what a powerful upshift in routing input.

I forget what but timesync is missing a lot of nice to haves. But ditching grub for something much much much more manageable & a joy to use. Networkd and resolved have both had a lot of nice clear straightforward options, and I love how systemd unit files snap together for these networking concerns.

Journald has been ok for me, and I use it a lot, but not intensively. Having adequate performance is definitely a huge concern.

znpy|7 months ago

systemd-resolved is a godsend.

I run, at home and at work, vpns and having a good way to configure split-horizon dns is incredibly useful.

At a previous company we were able to ship a binary that would automatically configure a bunch of company settings on developers' linux laptops and got VPN configurations working with split-horizon dns very easily.

prior to this, doing split-horizon dns on linux basically meant running dnsmasq (!!!) on every linux laptop

msgodel|7 months ago

I think if it was just service management most people wouldn't mind it nearly as much.

ahartmetz|7 months ago

Yes, systemd's weirdly bundled system services largely suck. The ones that I'm sure about: journald is more annoying to use than syslog (it takes forever - like a minute on a top of the line CPU - to scan two months worth of logs) and resolvd has or used to have basic bugs that other systems don't have.

Ferret7446|7 months ago

> The ones that I'm sure about: journald is more annoying to use than syslog (it takes forever - like a minute on a top of the line CPU - to scan two months worth of logs)

That sounds like an unequal comparison. For the same amount of log data and the exact same filter operation, journald should be strictly faster or equal to text logs. Are you sure this isn't because in your journald test you're going through a lot more logs? Because journald makes it easier/feasible to collect more logs.