Web browsers are the most bloated pieces of software on anyone's computer. All useful browser engines are awfully bloated, and there is no alternatives. For some reason people like to argue about systemd rather than push for some change on the web.
I think that is due to state of the web itself. To run all that JavaScript you need a bloated breast. There are alternatives such as lynx, but i don't think they're anywhere near as functional (haven't tried though, i may be wrong)
Because a browser is just a program. If it goes nuts, you close it and that's it. But what would you do if your system IS the problem? That is the crux of this "yes/no systemd". Systemd supporters swear and shout it's a "good" thing and systemd non-believers are sure that the former are talking nonsense and making Linux a mess now and a wreckage later.
what do you mean .... the point of a browser is to be a fancy wrapper of a javascript engine. Chromium is very fast i would argue the fastest there is right now, the reason why users cry [BLOAT] is because , websites nowdays have the demand to do more things , better visuals , better design ... all that means more code , more frameworks . which translates to more system usage. You need to understand now days everything runs on the cloud , which means that a lot of applications will be coded in that paradigm , web first , mobile second , desktop third. hate browsers all you want , but you need to picture the amount of complexity needed to write a view port that can accept dynamic interpreted code , very fast , very efficiently and render a complicated visually pleasing document in real time ...
@proteusx I wouldn't say that he's promoting it, since he literally did say that systemd's not his favorite init system and that he disagrees with some of its design choices. He's encouraging legitimate criticism over trying to rationalize an emotional hatred.
@Nocturn Adrift First, it's a meme into itself. Second, it stems from the fact that 4chan lost its sekrit club status. Not a bad thing except that the kind of people that used to visit that website no longer do... I'm not finished. But I can't answer right now.
Honestly, I think you are missing the point. 1.2 million lines of code just for an alternative init? Because THAT is exactly why to talk about systemd as an init alternative is pointless now. Systemd is just turning Linux into a second rate Wind*ws. I believe it's just a matter of time someone find a way to take down servers and systems via systemd. But bunchs of shouting empty heads call that "progress". Sheer madness. That's not going to happen because it's "secure" you say? My @ss. But hey! Be my guests and please, go on. When Linux finally ends up turned into an undebuggable piece of cr@ppy software, then systemd advocates will be happy and proud... and Wind*ws will be waiting for its prodigal sons with open arms (let's hope FreeBSD is still available then). (Howling systemd fanboys in 3...2...1...)
Luke, I tried Arch and Void on my Thinkpad T60 (2GB RAM) with same packages. I must say that Void used 105MB of RAM, Arch used 240MB. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate systemd, but I chose what is light for my system. I find out that working with runit is simple. People do not need to hate anything until there is a choice to choose.
a year late, but that's not a systemd thing. the Linux kernel is specifically designed to use RAM the best way it can. Like Linus Torvalds said himself "Unused RAM is wasted RAM". RAM usage is not a defining point in considering a software bad. CPU usage on the other hand..
@@notkamui9749 Yeah, you are right, my bad. The only thing I noticed was that my computer was a little faster with runit, I mean booting and working with services ;)
systemd is "slower" (though any init system spends most of its time actually running the services) but has more features. If you genuinely don't use any of those features, fine. But if I ever want to write a service, I sure am glad I can write a config file rather than dealing with buggy bash scripts.
@@xanri7673 When I saw some systemd feature, I agree with you. The only thing I hate is sometimes systemd parallel booting screw up your system, black screen...
I didn't have any qualms about systemd until a few months ago when journald would randomly cause my system to freeze. Nothing useful was logged, because the logger itself crashed, and I couldn't prevent this from happening because journald cannot be properly disabled; the system would fail to boot if you did so. I reinstalled Arch entirely and the problem came back. Then I tried Parabola with OpenRC, and things have been smooth ever since. And that's the problem with systemd. It's so large, unwieldy, and stubborn that if something goes wrong, you're about as fucked as if it happened on a proprietary OS. If everything goes the way you want, it's great, but it's intentionally built in a way that's hostile to modification. OpenRC has broken on me. Oh, it's broken. But I've always been able to tweak it.
@@wp6007 Yes. They say it's not officially supported, but the same can be said for Arch. You're just on your own as far as making sure you don't install stuff with a non-free license.
Luke, I just downloaded your fork of ST, and I just wanted to thank you for the effort you've put in it, even as to update the manpage so we noobs can know what to press to do stuff. So, thanks a lot!
What immediately sold me on systemd when it landed on Arch years ago was how stupidly easy it is to write service files, compared to how monstrously obtuse old init scripts could be. What a nightmare that was. Thank you systemd.
yeah, this part is true... why can't it just be an init system with a nice syntax for job files and stop there? why does it have to replace half the system too?
@@azngoku666 If you don't mind going the "Gentoo" way, you can compile systemd from sources and disable a lot of its components, if you don't need them. Then you can enjoy sysd without all the bloat.
funny. i find openrc and runit and openbsds rc system to be far more user friendly and intuitive. noone likes sysv but systemd certainly isn't great at anything. take getty autologin. i have to lookup how to do it every time with systemd. with runit vim /etc/service/getty.tty0 or whatever obvious file it is
the "big knockdown reason" is that it has been unnecessarily replacing tons of other well designed and good standard linux tools with lower quality 'systemd things' that big reason breaks down into examples like binary logs / journalctl, hostnamectl, machinectl, timedatectl ... anything ending in ctl that has fuck all to do with being an init system and comes with a bunch of annoying baggage then there's another layer of 'how the developers react to vulnerabilities, bugs etc' (which compounds the problem of replacing all the existing stuff) then the poor interoperability leads to things being developed "for systemd" or being fitted to it in some way (which is part of how microsoft has always operated) (e.g. every tutorial, script, devops recipe etc will be loaded with systemctl stuff and only tested with a systemd job that talks to *ctl tools as if linux is a 1990s monoculture with a proprietary codebase)
firefox is much less of a problem because it's extremely easy to opt out of using it... like half of any random group of people is using chrome/whatever else this is easy to see if you administer a whole bunch of systems (more than just your laptop + a vps web server) .. i suspect this is where a lot of the people in these comments are coming from
Systemd sucks, just like the linux kernal. Systemd has 1.2 million lines of C code. The point of the unix philosophy is too make things as small and minimal as possible *to avoid bugs* . How many bugs are in the 300 SLOC runit.c?
@@albussd The more frequent places to start exploring alternatives are the BSDs. FreeBSD is the most popular. OpenBSD is also great (has amazing desktops, despite the funny memes people make about it not.). FreeBSD community is rather SJW and pozzed though, so if that bothers a person, DragonFly BSD is a good option. (OpenBSD is based also.)
systemd is not an init, it is more like "system" library which all packages should use (it ate many other programs and libraries so...). This is what people hate. I jumped out of the loop of systemd and I use OpenRC with Artix. Boot time ? I have SSD. Internet is bloated. It is hassle to get rid of systemd. I do not hate it, I just do not agree that it is a good thing. You see it as init, but in reality it is not.
I agree with Juraj and Kim. We don't need networkd, logind, journald and most of that crap, we have a perfectly fine dhcpcd (or connman or NetworkManager), pam, and syslog-ng (or others).
Everybody that knows the pain of developing software for Linux will agree that systemd is a great thing, probably the best thing in the Linux world in the last 10 years. Why? Because it defines a standard, it defines something that you reasonably expect to find in every distribution. You don' t have as a developer deal with a ton of incompatible init systems and different ways to do it, that makes you software not work on that particular distribution. Or even from a sysadmin point of view, I SSH into a machine and now the fist thing that I do is run `systemctl status`, no need to think Oh, which distribution it is, let me see is Debian so I need to look a this log file, no it's Red Hat and I need to use this command to list the services running, how do I configure the network, and similar stuff. Another good thing of systemd is that the configuration format is simple, and it's uniform. And this is not only good for people that doesn't have to memorize 1000 config file syntax that changes from program to program or even distribution to distribution. It's great for whoever wants to write automated tools to do things, imagine someone that had to develop a GUI to do things in a system without systemd, and now imagine doing that with systemd, where the configuration files are simple, and you have command that do things instead of having to write scripts and do symlinks. With systemd is trivial, without it good luck.
Some of use still hate systemd because it is generating so much unnecessary dependencies, that people will be FORCED to use it because someone that was truly stupid decided that was a good idea and another bunch of stupid people thought that all those unnecessarily dependencies were ok. We will need 20 years until all those release what they have done. It's ok, please, to use systemd if and only if you use it because you want to use it and not because someone else forced you to use it. But the moment you force someone else to use systemd it's NOT fine. Why would I even need to make so much software "fixes" (like gentoo does) to only use gnome? like wtf. Seems like one of the next grep versions or I don't know, mpd, will need systemd to work because, just, YES, or maybe because they say it's too good not to use it (that's it, forcing us to use it). So that's why I don't like what systemd does, not what systemd is, which I think is an amazing software if I don't look at all I mentioned before. Thank you
gnome requires the API that systemd-logind presents for basic functionality, like power management, lid close handling, session tracking, etc. It'll still run without it, it just loses some basic functionality, assuming you don't provide a substitute. That said, I think this says more about the gnome developers than anything else. They've been making extremely questionable, if not outright bad decisions for years.
I haven't used systemd in ages, so when I heard you say that systemd hate is just a meme, I assumed that must have meant that systemd had substantially gotten it's act together. Then I hear you pretty much contradict yourself by saying that systemd gives you like 90 seconds of latency on errors... How is that remotely acceptable? Init is supposed to be the simplest thing in the world. So you're telling me that you're going to accept the ridiculous architectural decision to integrate numerous mostly unrelated components of a system into an 'init system', such that these components will _strongly depend_ on each other in order to function, on the grounds that it doesn't really harm performance or noticeably bloat your system, and you're telling me that if there is a systemd error, you're going to be staring at your screen for _ninety seconds_ before you can even deal with the problem, and yet this is not a deal breaker for you? How can this make any sense? Will you at least elaborate on this?
nah dude i love waiting an extra 3 minutes for my computer to turn off and getting no feedback like i'm using some kind of gongshow clown OS it's just a meme!!!!!
Don't forget that with systemd when you run `kill -9` you can't be 100% sure that the process will be stopped and deleted form memory. How can you break such basic functionality and say that "it just works" is beyond me. Granted i see it from sysadmin and software engineer perspective, so maybe it's more important for me than for regular users, and i'm also pissed still how it broke a lot of backwards compatibility on my production debian machines several years ago. But still, calling those thing 'nitpicks' just because he wasn't directly affected by those, is just plain ignorance.
@@kimkatsu1453 this sums up a lot of people who are like "lol systemD isn't bad ". They somehow don't understand that they've probably had some problem with the systemD software overtime , just do not realize it. Like udev or systemd controlled DNS. SystemD is way more than just booting up your computer
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as systemd, is in fact, Linux/systemd, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Linux plus systemd...
Polan Stronk _laughs in Wine_ Besides, the only con about Windows these days is that it's not open source. You don't even need a license to use Win10: The only difference it makes is a watermark and the ability to change wallpapers.
@@NoTraceOfSense I don't see the comment I was replying to anymore, but it was a response to a claim, there is nothing wrong with programs that hard-depend on systemd.
Most complains about systemd are usually invalid. However the concerns about how they handle certain bugs can be a valid one, how they absorbed other software that is not needed on an init system making it harder to maintain, and that it is certainly slow. Cannot comment on the first point, as I don't know enough about it. The second one is quite valid in my opinion, for example, why an init manager does need something to manage the network? I can understand managing the logs, as it needs to log when things fail, quite important on the init system, but the network? You don't need network on boot, and if you need it, you can make those services depend on your network service, but it shouldn't be integrated on the init. A boot manager? Debatable, but my take on it is no, not needed, let the boot manager pass whatever init needs and fire the process. Hardware management, really important, but it doesn't need to be fully integrated in the init as a complete package. Leave it as it's own module and hook it to systemd, don't glue it in permanently. And there is probably more of these. I've yet to read some arguments in favor of integrating everything under systemd's umbrella, asides being sure that you have certain things always on the system. I may not want to have certain things in my system, if so, please throw an error, and I'll choose if I want to use that program or go for another one. Don't make the choice for me, that's what Windows is for. The last point is far more debatable, since it is only seconds of difference for the most part, even more so with an SSD.
I read a post on the Arch forums about why they chose systemd. It was something like "it's less of a pain to maintain than the old way" and not at all "Harry Poettering hexed me with a bloatus extremiamus curse and made me do it".
yeah, it's easier to work with systemd than against it like how it's easier to shop through amazon than through retail stores (while amazon somehow continues chewing up and spitting out retail stores..)
@@azngoku666 no man, really it wasn't like that, they just saw it was a promising piece of software that offered better features. Systemd or any software have to show their worth to be chosen by anyone. Being reluctant with systemd was okay at the beginning, because we try to not risk it all and risk ending up losing it. Today, people resist it for the residual FUD (coupled with some naivety and lack of knowledge, most of the time) and the memes ofc.
The most problems with systemd was probably just in the beginning. Now it is more of a religious thing. But It still smell like sulfur! This ofcourse dosen't mean we have approven Firefox. Firefox isn't forced upon us in the same matter. but it stinks too
1) nice dragon 2) Void Linux boots faster because of runit, systemd is definitely slower 3) I use systemd on a Noobuntu laptop and I can't complain at all but I don't see any advantage of using it yet 4) Also while I didn't really like the other systemd video, I agree with everything you said in this one
Yep, can confirm it with ArchLinux/SystemD vs VoidLinux/runit on a laptop with only a hardrive. But there are no real reason for me to hate systemd. (=
@@abbacchio4579 I must have missed the part where he said bloat was okay? As far as I can tell, bloat is only okay for browsers because there are no alternatives...
@@BreakTheBeat852 but there is an inconsistent use of the word "bloat" as a noun. In the first instance, bloat is something that another thing can *be*. Example: bash IS bloat. In the second instance, he uses the phrase "systemd's bloat", which implies that bloat is not a state but something to be possessed. The real problem with that sentence is the ambiguity engendered by inconsistent application of "bloat" as a noun.
@@tapsi6928 It will surprise no one that that low quality post was brought to you by someone with playlists called "Furfaggotry" and "homosex" on their channel.
Systemd is not init. It absorbed an init component. It's a service manager that touches most of your hardware (in PID1!) and ever-growing. Suckless has a nice list of the services it opens and manages. While anti-unix this departure in design philosophy is acceptable. Taking over PID1 while being easier to open than a crackwhore isn't. Luke knows this since he has used Artix. Maybe this video was made before then? You used to be able to bypass systemd passwords with null. You can still do privilege escalation with methods discussed here www.reddit.com/r/netsecstudents/comments/8qwbfg/privilege_escalation_how_to?sort=confidence Google did a good job hiding their dirt. I agree with Luke to an extent: development is ongoing and the vocal rage is meme. But if you know about flaws past and future you should never recommend anyone use and support this software. You would be allowing a future of insecure systems.
For the memelords that might still be watching in 2020: Windows is slightly different. Proprietary and open source security are different beasts due to code transparency. Formerly their security was much worse, even as far back as W8 bypassing user passwords was trivial. I don't think it's as bad(?) as systemd if you have a fully upgraded W10 (ew). But the ultimate lesson is your system will probably always be insecure against physical access and the super paranoid HW kill switches incriminate you in many jurisdictions.
@@user1_1_1 that's why i said "that can compare" i know HURD, it can't compare because Linux is so much ahead. Systemd is a project that came to surpass System V init, thing it did a while ago. Other inits were there before systemd, and others appeared after it, and that's how it's supposed to be, if they're better than systemd and their devs can put it on a distro, or create a distro to showcase it, then people will see the value in adopting it. In the sysv days, upstart and other inits were around and people used them, we are in the linux floss world after all, people can do whatever they want.
@tony That is a mean, ill-intentioned question. If you don't want to use the linux kernel, then don't use linux. THERE you have your example of software replaceability.
@tony That is a mean, ill-intentioned question. If you don't want to use the linux kernel, then don't use linux. THERE you have your example of software replaceability.
Systemd locks you into it, for instance, poor interoperability with other abstractions, not to mention it's crazily large codebase, go look at the amounts of bugs Luke, you literally just said "it werks dude", cmon man
I used to be a hardline systemd hater, but I realized one important thing. It's a system daemon, not just an init. It's an entirely different mentality from old fashion UNIX, and that's what the big divide is really about. Additionally, it's unapologetically slanted towards use in enterprises. I clipped a huge text wall here because I realized longposting on YT is dumb, but Luke, just change your system.conf, user.conf, or unit settings with a lower timeout on starts and stops. The timeout is really a non-issue, but does remind that all things, including systemd, needs to have all related conf files checked at install or compile.
I just don't use a lot of its features, therefore I don't want it expanding endlessly until I notice its possibilities to explode. Hence there's stuff to crash it now
I detest dbus and the way hardware-related services are managed by systemd. It's virtually impossible to troubleshoot if something goes wrong with NM, for example. I agree there's no alternative on Linux significantly better enough to switch to, but it doesn't mean it's good software.
@@tonnylins fr to make dbus more verbose are there, it's just they are not in priority, because it's less exciting and has narrow application. As for developing my own solutions - I'm really not into programming.
@@Ululukiful that is worthy for bug filing, even if there are already other reports of the same thing. We're on the internet, I'm sure there are people somewhere around wanting to change/fork/reimplement dbus with the kinda touches you'd find desirable for some amount of money or something.
Hmm . . . what's bad about handing over complete control of my computer and all my data and passwords to Leonard Poeterring and any person he chooses with or without my knowledge? I can still run any software Leonard Poeterring doesn't disapprove of.
Tools are tools. Don't get emotional over them. Know the scenarios where "bloat" will be an issue for you and make sure to optimize by using other tools.
At this point, I stopped caring about my privacy because everything is infiltrated in some variation or another at this point in time, but the thing that makes me question systemd is how fucky its maintainers are forcing updates and the almost unanimous adoption by all the major distros and Red Hat's involvement in this. It's concerning the amount of systems are components of systemd as well as dependent because of the risk of backdoors being implemented into the project. I understand open source projects tend to get looked at as secure, but maintainers are people and many are low on time and take shortcuts. It's these shortcuts and the inexperienced that worry me about ill commits which introduce bits of or whole security vulnerabilities. Linux is just as susceptible and this is assuming all maintainers have good faith. With this concern another large concern is due to this adoption, how many more holes are going to be poked into everyone's system? With this being userland and more unified (attractive default options to distros and literally components) how easier is it for a government and/or agency to influence systemd over linux? With the mainsteam Linux FOSS ecosystem being dependent and getting more dependent on systemd, what range of attacks can be performed?
As I understand, it goes something like: make a headless server, forced-dependency on xorg.
11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2
Tell me: How many systemd distros allow you to use, easily, other init system? The answer to that question could make people think a little bit more about freedom!
Systemd actually has some really great tools such as systemd-nspawn (basically chroot but much better, superior to docker in many ways) thing is it works, also it has cgroup support which is great people complain about it being monolithic but at that point linux itself is monolithic also the 90sec wait on error is the default for arch but you can actually change it
kinda pointless rant, but.... imho that's quite a bit too long... and a lot of people don't specifically seek out the fact they can change it, they just really dislike it... other than like maybe, initializing dialup network or something, or really low specs, most stuff should definitely be fine with 30secs by default... to be fair, you can change literally every aspect of desktop linux systems, but people hope for sane defaults... they already blacklisted the pc-speaker beep module, why not also shorten it to 30 secs? smh...
Systemd sucks mostly because it's bloated and slow. It uses up so much resources. My system with xorg and i3wm is using less than 100mb of ram and an idle cpu under sysvinit. My arch box with a pretty standard setup and also using xorg and i3wm use 1.5gb of ram. And although it's supposed to start faster, arch starts way slower with systemd. Also default systemd with journald is horrible.
yes that 90 second wait on shutdown with systemd is the worst! why can't the hanging process just be killed and be examined upon the next reboot? When I'm rebooting I don't want to wait!
I hate Microsoft, but I use both LibreOffice and Microsoft Office. Not because Libre isn't good, but because Microsoft is so widely accepted, and a requirement in today's business age
@@mariozenarju6461 Pretty much. I hate emacs, but I will use it when I need it. I hate nano, but I'll use it when there's no vi. It's always a compromise. Systemd, however awful, doesn't get it my way. So I'll tolerate it.
@@mariozenarju6461 iirc MS Office can open Libreoffice files, so you could send them those, unless specified otherwise, and use a cracked MS Office for other cases? ;P
@@jan_harald I don't do piracy. I simply took the web MS Office, and added it as a shortcut to my app menu. And that's the exact reason why I use it, the clients are too dumb to realise that a software is just a set of tools, not some magical thingie that does what you yell at it
@@RillianGrant for an end user? Not really, if anything the logs being binary instead of plain text is an annoyance compared to simpler loggers. SystemD’s features shine for administering large numbers of systems; for a single machine it doesn’t really matter all that much which init you use.
@@roylastname9367 tbh my laptop is the type of old that most software has hardware incompadibilities. No qt based browser works and while surf does work on void linux it seems there is a but in the arch package because it requires libraries from both icu 63 and icu 64
Systemd has easy-to-use built-in support for multiseating. Creating a new seat is one command, adding a peripheral to the seat is one command. Reboot and done!
Is systemD(estroyer) extensible? Hell Yes! Its trejectory seems hell-bent (hell inspired?) upon * taking over * the entire GNU/Linux platform. Yeah, * something * like sysD is sorely needed for * server * management: there you & I are not as far apart. But I still rebuke it for the GNU/Linux * desktop * instance. Why? Even absent the bugginess of the project leader's other famed program (pulseaudio), systemD on the desktop is a Frankenstein that is aimed at * taking over * the platform. The intention is spelled out pretty clearly in sysD's own documentation. Soon to came releases of this piece of Totalitarian-ware will have the power to dictate to the rest of us as to how various key components of GNU/Linux will function. Or perhaps even * if * certain things, options we've always had open on the Linux-based desktop will function at all. The netbook was basically killed-off (and had to be reborn as convertibles) bc ms didn't like this form-factor enough to keep suporting it when Windows 8 hit the consumer stream. Will certain progs be deleted from Linux's ecosystem bc the sysD team decides "we don't have time to continue supporting ___"? The udev and udisks have already had to be changed to accomodate systemd. Other "outliar" objects that * desktop * users may wish to run as a service may become "unsupported software". Or not. But it will be up to the systemD team and IBM, now the parent company of RHEL, Inc. Which is all fine, * maybe *, for the ** server ** guys. Those of us in the desktop ecosphere are used to * near total * configurability. SystemD states in its own docu that part of its mission is to "homogenize" GNU/Linux [paraphrse.]. Yeah, were I admin of a server farm (corporate), sysD would pique my interest: it could make multi-Us a lot easier to manage in a number of ways. But that doesn't equate to "I want this beast on my desktop". This critical piece of system-software is being handed a * lot * of power, whether or not that power gets abused. I keep praying for the success of Obarun Linux, and one of the Artix devs recently released a script curiously named "FUCKTHESKULLOFSYSTEMD", wherever he got that name from: this is [apparently] a d/l-able script that supposedly can convert any Arch-based instance from systemD to an OpenRC config--though systemD will not be (fully) uninstalled bc of dependency issues. Liberty is an important thing to the world. Man should not have to live under tyranny. A guilded cage is still a cage.
The problem with systemd is not that the programs are bad, it's that proponents literally have only vague arguments in favour of it. This led people to look much harder for crazy stuff, and we did find it. It may well be the best thing since sliced bread, but we were only supposed to assume it, not be convinced.
I have no issues with systemd, I have some systems with it and some without it. the systems without it are very simple and do one or two things and do not need systemd's extra features. if these systems break or shutdown improperly it's of no consequence... using an old laptop as a live audio effects processor for example.. systemd is fast booting but can be slow on shutdown due to housekeeping, memory use is around 45 - 100 megs AFAIK. Distributions such as Debian pushed out a buggy version of systemd which broke many installations including my beloved Frankenstein cluster.. this was a thing of beauty that I had run for at least 10 years which i will not get into heavily here. Basically each garbage PC did one thing and did it very well, each piece was disposable and easily replaceable. systemd's introduction into debian was the first time an upgrade broke forcing me to start from scratch. this was not systemd's fault nor debian's. it was partially mine because i had not checked release notes. Why would I if upgrades go without issue for over a decade? I have come to appreciate systemd's usefulness since then. When i am building a configuration that does not fit into the mold of either desktop or server I will use a basic init system. when i need extensive housekeeping and logging I will use systemd.
I *wondered* why I couldn't learn anything about systemd's concrete disadvantages. I'm not deep into the inner workings of Linux yet, but I like minimal software. I try to research various concepts as I come across them. Trying to get an overview of the whole systemd vs other init systems thing turned up only vague platitudes. I'm trying out a (/“the”) lite Gentoo image for 64-bit Raspberry Pi (highly specific hardware-this makes perfect sense). I genuinely thought I might get
I'm using Devuan Beowulf since few months and it works great with Gnome-3.32. Although, It took some work to configure it. It uses eudev, elogind etc forked from systemd to get the things working. I am also using FreeBSD 12.1, which is way more clean, except for you don't get netflix or prime videos to play in Firefox.
Dunno if this helps, but I've been using Arch for 2+ years, starting sometime after the switch. In that time, I've had... I hesitate to say no breakage, but no breakage that I remember. I think I would still prefer to not use systemd, but unfortunately I make heavy use of the AUR, so my attempt at using obarun didn't last very long. (I'll definitely give it another try if/when I setup a secondary box, though)
Absolutely. Majority of the code is just drives for obscure hardware that will unlikely be used by your regular user. The best way to counter this is change from a monolith kernel to a microkernel
I don't think the problem with the init is because of being software... It's the target the developer may after. Linus Torvald steped forward and defended them at the beginning of the controversity of ~2013-2014, he then changed his opinion about them because he don't know what they want to achieve and that they may target a environment for bad ideas. So as a result he kicked the devs out of the kernel workgroupe . Some also pointed out that there were unexpected google dns links. first the devs denied it, - then they announced that it would be helpful for systemd but that google created some bad code - in which the google engineers defended their work... Seems strange to me. In my opinion they should work on a cooperated solution with the kernel team, the free software foundation team and the gnu team. Aluminium heats could now argue that the us government has programmers in redhead which are working also on systemd...
I cannot hate it because it works well, it does it's job and it is making the lives of many people easier. But It goes against the philosophy on which most unix inspired software is built upon. So I can't say that I hate it because I don't have a reason to hate it. But I do dislike it, because in my eyes it doesn't fit very well. Having such a process that acts like an overlord when it comes to certain things is simply hard for me to imagine flawless. In the end I'm not even that big of an expert so even I don't value my opinion that much.
@@olegcherkasky2755 This process stays above and unifies a lot of other processes. It is unlike the "recommended" simple autonomous programs that do one task perfectly rather than a complex program that does everything decently. Unix was all about small programs that work together rather than overlordship of programs. SystemD is pretty much an overlord of all daemons. If you check your system processes you'll find out that most of your processes are "under" systemd, thus being controlled or commanded by it. Bypassing systemd is almost as hard as bypassing the kernel itself. I'm not saying that is bad in any way, nor am I saying it should be banned or even adviced against. But some of the most hardcore systemd haters are concerned by the fact that "The entire system so far worked the unix way and introducing the otherway around in core processes like the init system will/may/might lead to issues, problems or straying away from the path followed so far that used to work". Again, I am not defending this view completely mostly because more centralized/"non-unix way" programs are part of linux for a long long time now.
If you are forced to adopt a system plagued with systemd when you don't want to, this "freedom of choice" you are talking about is a blatant lie, plain and simple.
I do think there's plenty of valid ciriticms for systemd and I have my own - I don't like that it creates multiple ways of doing things. For instance, if I want to run something on start up as my user, I can either make it a systemd service OR I can add it to my .profile. However none of this is really an argument for why it's "bloated", it's more to do with the way Linux works and fits together.
Firefox is one of the fastest, compared to chromium based browsers anyway, ime. The only reason I don't like it is because they banned dissenter, which even Chrome has
Imho you are combining two many arguments in you definition of bloated software. Basically what you are saying - if I understood you correctly - is that if software contains a lot of features and is not extensible it is bloated. I think one should leave the extentiality argument out of it. Software that cannot be extended is just that 'not extensible software'. What you still have to address then is the difference between feature rich software and bloated software. What they have in common is that the filosofy is that a lot of functionality is present in both but something becomes bloated if that functionality does not serve a good enough purpose. Looking from this perspective I would not call systemd bloated but for instance Adobe pdf viewer on Windows (sorry couldn't find a good Linux example) is. So contrary to feature rich the word 'bloated' has a negative conotation that in my opinion should be avoided when we talk about software that is just feature rich (such as systemd). P.s. I have no deep preference for systemd or any other init systems but I like your rational arguments in favour of systemd and the fact that you do not shy away from bringing forward possibly unpopular arguments!
I've noticed that people become more rabid about stuff like this the further they get from it actually being a problem for them. LAYER 0 = "I don't use systemd for the following reasons" LAYER 1 = "LAYER 0 doesn't use systemd because it doesn't work for him" LAYER 5 = "LAYER 0 doesn't use systemd because he thinks it sucks!" LAYER = ??? "systemd is NSA bloat the info-collage I saw on 4chan told me so!"
So sad to see what used to be such a bright, independently thinking young man so obviously bought and paid for by big systemd (big D for short).
Poettering called Luke and showed him the power of his big D
Hehehe
[is watching this video in Firefox.]
I feel attacked
Brave man
Yes
Same, but hey, at least it's better than Brave, which still supports advertising.
same lol, i was watching this video using firefox
Web browsers are the most bloated pieces of software on anyone's computer. All useful browser engines are awfully bloated, and there is no alternatives. For some reason people like to argue about systemd rather than push for some change on the web.
I think that is due to state of the web itself. To run all that JavaScript you need a bloated breast. There are alternatives such as lynx, but i don't think they're anywhere near as functional (haven't tried though, i may be wrong)
Because a browser is just a program. If it goes nuts, you close it and that's it. But what would you do if your system IS the problem? That is the crux of this "yes/no systemd". Systemd supporters swear and shout it's a "good" thing and systemd non-believers are sure that the former are talking nonsense and making Linux a mess now and a wreckage later.
what do you mean .... the point of a browser is to be a fancy wrapper of a javascript engine. Chromium is very fast i would argue the fastest there is right now, the reason why users cry [BLOAT] is because , websites nowdays have the demand to do more things , better visuals , better design ... all that means more code , more frameworks . which translates to more system usage. You need to understand now days everything runs on the cloud , which means that a lot of applications will be coded in that paradigm , web first , mobile second , desktop third.
hate browsers all you want , but you need to picture the amount of complexity needed to write a view port that can accept dynamic interpreted code , very fast , very efficiently and render a complicated visually pleasing document in real time ...
Use the suckless browser lol
Usefulness is bloat
@@deleatur Oh look, another baseless systemd hater who probably has not a single clue what an init system is
Old man yells at meme.
I like how you omitted the dot on the i to evade yt algorithms :D
Current employment status: Professional e-celeb
@@LukeSmithxyz are you a pro influencer?
@proteusx I wouldn't say that he's promoting it, since he literally did say that systemd's not his favorite init system and that he disagrees with some of its design choices. He's encouraging legitimate criticism over trying to rationalize an emotional hatred.
@@LukeSmithxyz Current employment status: brave browser shill
@@elkenbuild5996Luke Smith is a content creator.
>having to explain this in simple language for /g/ to understand
The absolute state of /g/
it's pronounced /tech/
Pollux -Is anime weeb
>using this formatting
-“/g/“
Seems about right
>greentext on youtube
@Nocturn Adrift First, it's a meme into itself.
Second, it stems from the fact that 4chan lost its sekrit club status. Not a bad thing except that the kind of people that used to visit that website no longer do...
I'm not finished. But I can't answer right now.
Opinions are bloated
no u
😂😂😂😂😂👌
system xd lmao
Fuggen goteeem!
Honestly, I think you are missing the point. 1.2 million lines of code just for an alternative init? Because THAT is exactly why to talk about systemd as an init alternative is pointless now. Systemd is just turning Linux into a second rate Wind*ws.
I believe it's just a matter of time someone find a way to take down servers and systems via systemd. But bunchs of shouting empty heads call that "progress". Sheer madness.
That's not going to happen because it's "secure" you say? My @ss. But hey! Be my guests and please, go on.
When Linux finally ends up turned into an undebuggable piece of cr@ppy software, then systemd advocates will be happy and proud... and Wind*ws will be waiting for its prodigal sons with open arms (let's hope FreeBSD is still available then).
(Howling systemd fanboys in 3...2...1...)
Luke, I tried Arch and Void on my Thinkpad T60 (2GB RAM) with same packages. I must say that Void used 105MB of RAM, Arch used 240MB. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate systemd, but I chose what is light for my system. I find out that working with runit is simple. People do not need to hate anything until there is a choice to choose.
a year late, but that's not a systemd thing.
the Linux kernel is specifically designed to use RAM the best way it can. Like Linus Torvalds said himself "Unused RAM is wasted RAM".
RAM usage is not a defining point in considering a software bad. CPU usage on the other hand..
@@notkamui9749 Yeah, you are right, my bad. The only thing I noticed was that my computer was a little faster with runit, I mean booting and working with services ;)
@@luka95kovach That might be true, systemd is indeed a little slower on startup.
systemd is "slower" (though any init system spends most of its time actually running the services) but has more features. If you genuinely don't use any of those features, fine. But if I ever want to write a service, I sure am glad I can write a config file rather than dealing with buggy bash scripts.
@@xanri7673 When I saw some systemd feature, I agree with you. The only thing I hate is sometimes systemd parallel booting screw up your system, black screen...
I didn't have any qualms about systemd until a few months ago when journald would randomly cause my system to freeze. Nothing useful was logged, because the logger itself crashed, and I couldn't prevent this from happening because journald cannot be properly disabled; the system would fail to boot if you did so. I reinstalled Arch entirely and the problem came back. Then I tried Parabola with OpenRC, and things have been smooth ever since.
And that's the problem with systemd. It's so large, unwieldy, and stubborn that if something goes wrong, you're about as fucked as if it happened on a proprietary OS. If everything goes the way you want, it's great, but it's intentionally built in a way that's hostile to modification. OpenRC has broken on me. Oh, it's broken. But I've always been able to tweak it.
@@wp6007 Yes. They say it's not officially supported, but the same can be said for Arch. You're just on your own as far as making sure you don't install stuff with a non-free license.
Luke, I just downloaded your fork of ST, and I just wanted to thank you for the effort you've put in it, even as to update the manpage so we noobs can know what to press to do stuff.
So, thanks a lot!
Julio Pinto Coelho What’s ST?
@@AkamiChannel suckless terminal / simple terminal
@@AkamiChannel suckless terminal
@AkamiChannel suckless terminal
@@AkamiChannel dang, I didn't receive notification for that comment, sorry!
What immediately sold me on systemd when it landed on Arch years ago was how stupidly easy it is to write service files, compared to how monstrously obtuse old init scripts could be. What a nightmare that was. Thank you systemd.
yeah, this part is true... why can't it just be an init system with a nice syntax for job files and stop there?
why does it have to replace half the system too?
@@azngoku666 If you don't mind going the "Gentoo" way, you can compile systemd from sources and disable a lot of its components, if you don't need them.
Then you can enjoy sysd without all the bloat.
runit is kinda nice tbh
systemd is very good at what it originally set out to be. that's not the part people have a problem with. it's the creep.
funny. i find openrc and runit and openbsds rc system to be far more user friendly and intuitive. noone likes sysv but systemd certainly isn't great at anything. take getty autologin. i have to lookup how to do it every time with systemd. with runit vim /etc/service/getty.tty0 or whatever obvious file it is
the "big knockdown reason" is that it has been unnecessarily replacing tons of other well designed and good standard linux tools with lower quality 'systemd things'
that big reason breaks down into examples like binary logs / journalctl, hostnamectl, machinectl, timedatectl ... anything ending in ctl that has fuck all to do with being an init system and comes with a bunch of annoying baggage
then there's another layer of 'how the developers react to vulnerabilities, bugs etc' (which compounds the problem of replacing all the existing stuff)
then the poor interoperability leads to things being developed "for systemd" or being fitted to it in some way (which is part of how microsoft has always operated)
(e.g. every tutorial, script, devops recipe etc will be loaded with systemctl stuff and only tested with a systemd job that talks to *ctl tools as if linux is a 1990s monoculture with a proprietary codebase)
firefox is much less of a problem because it's extremely easy to opt out of using it... like half of any random group of people is using chrome/whatever else
this is easy to see if you administer a whole bunch of systems (more than just your laptop + a vps web server) .. i suspect this is where a lot of the people in these comments are coming from
The guy that uses a paper map to get around is all about convenience of systemd.
Uatu lol so what’s better?
Maps are bloat you should navigate via astronomy
Systemd sucks, just like the linux kernal. Systemd has 1.2 million lines of C code. The point of the unix philosophy is too make things as small and minimal as possible *to avoid bugs* . How many bugs are in the 300 SLOC runit.c?
@@ChrisJones-rd4wb Hmm.. Could you please expand on "linux kernel sucks"? And any recommendations for good Unix-based OSes one can try?
@@albussd The more frequent places to start exploring alternatives are the BSDs. FreeBSD is the most popular. OpenBSD is also great (has amazing desktops, despite the funny memes people make about it not.). FreeBSD community is rather SJW and pozzed though, so if that bothers a person, DragonFly BSD is a good option. (OpenBSD is based also.)
systemd is not an init, it is more like "system" library which all packages should use (it ate many other programs and libraries so...).
This is what people hate.
I jumped out of the loop of systemd and I use OpenRC with Artix.
Boot time ? I have SSD.
Internet is bloated.
It is hassle to get rid of systemd.
I do not hate it, I just do not agree that it is a good thing.
You see it as init, but in reality it is not.
If systemd was only init i wouldn't mind it at all. In fact it would be one of the best init system out there.
Good point
I agree with Juraj and Kim. We don't need networkd, logind, journald and most of that crap, we have a perfectly fine dhcpcd (or connman or NetworkManager), pam, and syslog-ng (or others).
@Username that is new for me, I did not know that plain text logs are so hated together with mount network configuration, logind, dbus, udev.
Everybody that knows the pain of developing software for Linux will agree that systemd is a great thing, probably the best thing in the Linux world in the last 10 years. Why? Because it defines a standard, it defines something that you reasonably expect to find in every distribution. You don' t have as a developer deal with a ton of incompatible init systems and different ways to do it, that makes you software not work on that particular distribution.
Or even from a sysadmin point of view, I SSH into a machine and now the fist thing that I do is run `systemctl status`, no need to think Oh, which distribution it is, let me see is Debian so I need to look a this log file, no it's Red Hat and I need to use this command to list the services running, how do I configure the network, and similar stuff.
Another good thing of systemd is that the configuration format is simple, and it's uniform. And this is not only good for people that doesn't have to memorize 1000 config file syntax that changes from program to program or even distribution to distribution. It's great for whoever wants to write automated tools to do things, imagine someone that had to develop a GUI to do things in a system without systemd, and now imagine doing that with systemd, where the configuration files are simple, and you have command that do things instead of having to write scripts and do symlinks. With systemd is trivial, without it good luck.
>takes 1:30 to shutdown thermal daemon
That precious 90 secs ;)
Some of use still hate systemd because it is generating so much unnecessary dependencies, that people will be FORCED to use it because someone that was truly stupid decided that was a good idea and another bunch of stupid people thought that all those unnecessarily dependencies were ok. We will need 20 years until all those release what they have done.
It's ok, please, to use systemd if and only if you use it because you want to use it and not because someone else forced you to use it. But the moment you force someone else to use systemd it's NOT fine. Why would I even need to make so much software "fixes" (like gentoo does) to only use gnome? like wtf. Seems like one of the next grep versions or I don't know, mpd, will need systemd to work because, just, YES, or maybe because they say it's too good not to use it (that's it, forcing us to use it).
So that's why I don't like what systemd does, not what systemd is, which I think is an amazing software if I don't look at all I mentioned before.
Thank you
gnome requires the API that systemd-logind presents for basic functionality, like power management, lid close handling, session tracking, etc. It'll still run without it, it just loses some basic functionality, assuming you don't provide a substitute.
That said, I think this says more about the gnome developers than anything else. They've been making extremely questionable, if not outright bad decisions for years.
I haven't used systemd in ages, so when I heard you say that systemd hate is just a meme, I assumed that must have meant that systemd had substantially gotten it's act together. Then I hear you pretty much contradict yourself by saying that systemd gives you like 90 seconds of latency on errors... How is that remotely acceptable? Init is supposed to be the simplest thing in the world. So you're telling me that you're going to accept the ridiculous architectural decision to integrate numerous mostly unrelated components of a system into an 'init system', such that these components will _strongly depend_ on each other in order to function, on the grounds that it doesn't really harm performance or noticeably bloat your system, and you're telling me that if there is a systemd error, you're going to be staring at your screen for _ninety seconds_ before you can even deal with the problem, and yet this is not a deal breaker for you? How can this make any sense? Will you at least elaborate on this?
nah dude i love waiting an extra 3 minutes for my computer to turn off and getting no feedback like i'm using some kind of gongshow clown OS
it's just a meme!!!!!
Don't forget that with systemd when you run `kill -9` you can't be 100% sure that the process will be stopped and deleted form memory. How can you break such basic functionality and say that "it just works" is beyond me.
Granted i see it from sysadmin and software engineer perspective, so maybe it's more important for me than for regular users, and i'm also pissed still how it broke a lot of backwards compatibility on my production debian machines several years ago. But still, calling those thing 'nitpicks' just because he wasn't directly affected by those, is just plain ignorance.
@@kimkatsu1453 this sums up a lot of people who are like "lol systemD isn't bad ". They somehow don't understand that they've probably had some problem with the systemD software overtime , just do not realize it. Like udev or systemd controlled DNS. SystemD is way more than just booting up your computer
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as systemd, is in fact, Linux/systemd, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Linux plus systemd...
The growing amount of FOSS projects with hard dependencies on systemD is disgusting.
@richard kaczynski What do you think about FOSS programs that only work on Windows?
Polan Stronk _laughs in Wine_
Besides, the only con about Windows these days is that it's not open source. You don't even need a license to use Win10: The only difference it makes is a watermark and the ability to change wallpapers.
@@NoTraceOfSense I don't see the comment I was replying to anymore, but it was a response to a claim, there is nothing wrong with programs that hard-depend on systemd.
You try to write those features without systemd.
@@microcolonel Can you name a few features that are impossible without systemd?
Most complains about systemd are usually invalid. However the concerns about how they handle certain bugs can be a valid one, how they absorbed other software that is not needed on an init system making it harder to maintain, and that it is certainly slow. Cannot comment on the first point, as I don't know enough about it. The second one is quite valid in my opinion, for example, why an init manager does need something to manage the network? I can understand managing the logs, as it needs to log when things fail, quite important on the init system, but the network? You don't need network on boot, and if you need it, you can make those services depend on your network service, but it shouldn't be integrated on the init. A boot manager? Debatable, but my take on it is no, not needed, let the boot manager pass whatever init needs and fire the process. Hardware management, really important, but it doesn't need to be fully integrated in the init as a complete package. Leave it as it's own module and hook it to systemd, don't glue it in permanently.
And there is probably more of these. I've yet to read some arguments in favor of integrating everything under systemd's umbrella, asides being sure that you have certain things always on the system. I may not want to have certain things in my system, if so, please throw an error, and I'll choose if I want to use that program or go for another one. Don't make the choice for me, that's what Windows is for. The last point is far more debatable, since it is only seconds of difference for the most part, even more so with an SSD.
I read a post on the Arch forums about why they chose systemd. It was something like "it's less of a pain to maintain than the old way" and not at all "Harry Poettering hexed me with a bloatus extremiamus curse and made me do it".
yeah, it's easier to work with systemd than against it like how it's easier to shop through amazon than through retail stores (while amazon somehow continues chewing up and spitting out retail stores..)
At least Artix Linux gives you an option to let you use either OpenRC or runit.
@@azngoku666 no man, really it wasn't like that, they just saw it was a promising piece of software that offered better features. Systemd or any software have to show their worth to be chosen by anyone. Being reluctant with systemd was okay at the beginning, because we try to not risk it all and risk ending up losing it. Today, people resist it for the residual FUD (coupled with some naivety and lack of knowledge, most of the time) and the memes ofc.
Slackware has a pretty neat init system...
Slackware still uses SysV ;) it's nice and is way more stable
@Trevis Schiffer yes it's the SysV init system :)
The most problems with systemd was probably just in the beginning. Now it is more of a religious thing. But It still smell like sulfur!
This ofcourse dosen't mean we have approven Firefox. Firefox isn't forced upon us in the same matter. but it stinks too
Ideology and hatred aside, systemd is huge security problem. That alone is enough for me not to use it.
would you care to elaborate
@@shaurz OMG THERE EXISTS SOFTWARE THAT ISN'T 100% AMAZING AWESOME SECURE EFFICIENT!??!?!!?!?
1) nice dragon
2) Void Linux boots faster because of runit, systemd is definitely slower
3) I use systemd on a Noobuntu laptop and I can't complain at all but I don't see any advantage of using it yet
4) Also while I didn't really like the other systemd video, I agree with everything you said in this one
Yep, can confirm it with ArchLinux/SystemD vs VoidLinux/runit on a laptop with only a hardrive. But there are no real reason for me to hate systemd. (=
void linux boots slower than arch linux with systemd
USE="-systemd -pulseaudio"
Look I love Emacs but also acknowledge it's bloat, why can you not acknowledge systemd's bloat
@@abbacchio4579 I must have missed the part where he said bloat was okay? As far as I can tell, bloat is only okay for browsers because there are no alternatives...
Forced memes are indistinguishable from just dumb people.
The possessive its does not have an apostrophe
Peter Engelbert He actually meant to type “ it’s “ so it’s correct
@@BreakTheBeat852 but there is an inconsistent use of the word "bloat" as a noun. In the first instance, bloat is something that another thing can *be*. Example: bash IS bloat. In the second instance, he uses the phrase "systemd's bloat", which implies that bloat is not a state but something to be possessed. The real problem with that sentence is the ambiguity engendered by inconsistent application of "bloat" as a noun.
Stopping listening to 4chan was one of the best things I've ever done.
@@tapsi6928 I stopped going on /pol/ awhile ago. My pro-European ideas formed before I went on there and remained after I quit going on.
Back to Reddit, not missed
@@tapsi6928 It will surprise no one that that low quality post was brought to you by someone with playlists called "Furfaggotry" and "homosex" on their channel.
@@LukeSmithxyz kek
@@watkinsishere Reddit's just as bad for other reasons. Most internet communities end up being cesspools of shit in the end.
Systemd is not init. It absorbed an init component. It's a service manager that touches most of your hardware (in PID1!) and ever-growing. Suckless has a nice list of the services it opens and manages. While anti-unix this departure in design philosophy is acceptable. Taking over PID1 while being easier to open than a crackwhore isn't. Luke knows this since he has used Artix. Maybe this video was made before then? You used to be able to bypass systemd passwords with null. You can still do privilege escalation with methods discussed here www.reddit.com/r/netsecstudents/comments/8qwbfg/privilege_escalation_how_to?sort=confidence
Google did a good job hiding their dirt. I agree with Luke to an extent: development is ongoing and the vocal rage is meme. But if you know about flaws past and future you should never recommend anyone use and support this software. You would be allowing a future of insecure systems.
For the memelords that might still be watching in 2020: Windows is slightly different. Proprietary and open source security are different beasts due to code transparency. Formerly their security was much worse, even as far back as W8 bypassing user passwords was trivial. I don't think it's as bad(?) as systemd if you have a fully upgraded W10 (ew). But the ultimate lesson is your system will probably always be insecure against physical access and the super paranoid HW kill switches incriminate you in many jurisdictions.
Luke, what about replaceability of init system? Every software should be replaceable, don't you think so?
Any suggestions for replacing linux (the kernel) with something that can compare to it?
@@tonnylins GNU Hurd - it's abandoned though
@@user1_1_1 that's why i said "that can compare" i know HURD, it can't compare because Linux is so much ahead. Systemd is a project that came to surpass System V init, thing it did a while ago. Other inits were there before systemd, and others appeared after it, and that's how it's supposed to be, if they're better than systemd and their devs can put it on a distro, or create a distro to showcase it, then people will see the value in adopting it. In the sysv days, upstart and other inits were around and people used them, we are in the linux floss world after all, people can do whatever they want.
@tony
That is a mean, ill-intentioned question. If you don't want to use the linux kernel, then don't use linux. THERE you have your example of software replaceability.
@tony
That is a mean, ill-intentioned question. If you don't want to use the linux kernel, then don't use linux. THERE you have your example of software replaceability.
"I say you should use runit, you should avoid systemd" - luke Smith
Systemd locks you into it, for instance, poor interoperability with other abstractions, not to mention it's crazily large codebase, go look at the amounts of bugs Luke, you literally just said "it werks dude", cmon man
I used to be a hardline systemd hater, but I realized one important thing. It's a system daemon, not just an init. It's an entirely different mentality from old fashion UNIX, and that's what the big divide is really about. Additionally, it's unapologetically slanted towards use in enterprises.
I clipped a huge text wall here because I realized longposting on YT is dumb, but Luke, just change your system.conf, user.conf, or unit settings with a lower timeout on starts and stops. The timeout is really a non-issue, but does remind that all things, including systemd, needs to have all related conf files checked at install or compile.
It's not a big hassle to remove Firefox. It's a big hassle to keep a system up when the distro ha set its mind on systemd and you don't want it.
I didn't *want* to hate systemd, it just came along crept in and now I despise the thing.
I just don't use a lot of its features, therefore I don't want it expanding endlessly until I notice its possibilities to explode.
Hence there's stuff to crash it now
I also don't want additional stuff that likes to fingerprint stuff
I don't use a lot of the kernels features either.
I detest dbus and the way hardware-related services are managed by systemd. It's virtually impossible to troubleshoot if something goes wrong with NM, for example.
I agree there's no alternative on Linux significantly better enough to switch to, but it doesn't mean it's good software.
ofc you can file a bug or develop patches to implement what you desire
@@tonnylins fr to make dbus more verbose are there, it's just they are not in priority, because it's less exciting and has narrow application. As for developing my own solutions - I'm really not into programming.
@@Ululukiful that is worthy for bug filing, even if there are already other reports of the same thing. We're on the internet, I'm sure there are people somewhere around wanting to change/fork/reimplement dbus with the kinda touches you'd find desirable for some amount of money or something.
Hmm . . . what's bad about handing over complete control of my computer and all my data and passwords to Leonard Poeterring and any person he chooses with or without my knowledge? I can still run any software Leonard Poeterring doesn't disapprove of.
Say that to any other piece of software
Tools are tools. Don't get emotional over them. Know the scenarios where "bloat" will be an issue for you and make sure to optimize by using other tools.
The triggering factor alone is enough to make anyone love systemd.
Using bloated software is taking the easy road a.k.a. the path of sin. Repent sinners.
At this point, I stopped caring about my privacy because everything is infiltrated in some variation or another at this point in time, but the thing that makes me question systemd is how fucky its maintainers are forcing updates and the almost unanimous adoption by all the major distros and Red Hat's involvement in this. It's concerning the amount of systems are components of systemd as well as dependent because of the risk of backdoors being implemented into the project. I understand open source projects tend to get looked at as secure, but maintainers are people and many are low on time and take shortcuts. It's these shortcuts and the inexperienced that worry me about ill commits which introduce bits of or whole security vulnerabilities. Linux is just as susceptible and this is assuming all maintainers have good faith. With this concern another large concern is due to this adoption, how many more holes are going to be poked into everyone's system? With this being userland and more unified (attractive default options to distros and literally components) how easier is it for a government and/or agency to influence systemd over linux? With the mainsteam Linux FOSS ecosystem being dependent and getting more dependent on systemd, what range of attacks can be performed?
FreeBSD user watching this discussion while sitting on the fence an laughing... I am glad I don't have to deal with this.
As I understand, it goes something like: make a headless server, forced-dependency on xorg.
Tell me: How many systemd distros allow you to use, easily, other init system? The answer to that question could make people think a little bit more about freedom!
Systemd prevented me to reboot my computer, multiple times.
Yes, I do have reasons not to use this.
With firefox i don't have to uninstall my distro and choose something else outside of mainstream distros to use some other browser.
Systemd actually has some really great tools such as systemd-nspawn (basically chroot but much better, superior to docker in many ways)
thing is it works, also it has cgroup support which is great
people complain about it being monolithic but at that point linux itself is monolithic
also the 90sec wait on error is the default for arch
but you can actually change it
kinda pointless rant, but....
imho that's quite a bit too long... and a lot of people don't specifically seek out the fact they can change it, they just really dislike it...
other than like maybe, initializing dialup network or something, or really low specs, most stuff should definitely be fine with 30secs by default...
to be fair, you can change literally every aspect of desktop linux systems, but people hope for sane defaults...
they already blacklisted the pc-speaker beep module, why not also shorten it to 30 secs? smh...
"up next: Bash is bloated!"
Kek
Systemd: there's issues, but it hasn't burnt down anything huge yet...
SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE!!!!!!
You mean the linux kernel?
@@lordadamson Multiple large points of failure.
That's not to mention that most sysadmins, having experienced a Post-SystemD and pre-SystemD, prefer the latter
Systemd runs on the majority of servers. Why are they still using it?
Systemd sucks mostly because it's bloated and slow. It uses up so much resources. My system with xorg and i3wm is using less than 100mb of ram and an idle cpu under sysvinit. My arch box with a pretty standard setup and also using xorg and i3wm use 1.5gb of ram. And although it's supposed to start faster, arch starts way slower with systemd. Also default systemd with journald is horrible.
And i'm not joking, i'm not meming.
false information
bro you just posted cringe
yes that 90 second wait on shutdown with systemd is the worst! why can't the hanging process just be killed and be examined upon the next reboot? When I'm rebooting I don't want to wait!
For me it's more like systemd-disdain rather than hatred. I dislike it, but that doesn't mean I won't use it.
same...
I'm not against it so much that I'll switch distros or something, but I just don't like it...
I hate Microsoft, but I use both LibreOffice and Microsoft Office. Not because Libre isn't good, but because Microsoft is so widely accepted, and a requirement in today's business age
@@mariozenarju6461 Pretty much. I hate emacs, but I will use it when I need it. I hate nano, but I'll use it when there's no vi. It's always a compromise. Systemd, however awful, doesn't get it my way. So I'll tolerate it.
@@mariozenarju6461 iirc MS Office can open Libreoffice files, so you could send them those, unless specified otherwise, and use a cracked MS Office for other cases? ;P
@@jan_harald I don't do piracy. I simply took the web MS Office, and added it as a shortcut to my app menu. And that's the exact reason why I use it, the clients are too dumb to realise that a software is just a set of tools, not some magical thingie that does what you yell at it
Systemd doesn't affect end users one way or the other. For server admins, there are real, tangible reasons to use other init systems.
I'm surprised. I imagined things like journalctl would be a major plus
@@RillianGrant for an end user? Not really, if anything the logs being binary instead of plain text is an annoyance compared to simpler loggers. SystemD’s features shine for administering large numbers of systems; for a single machine it doesn’t really matter all that much which init you use.
living is bloated LMAO
Also firefox is soyshit and surf doesnt work for some reason on my old laptop.
@@roylastname9367 tbh my laptop is the type of old that most software has hardware incompadibilities.
No qt based browser works and while surf does work on void linux it seems there is a but in the arch package because it requires libraries from both icu 63 and icu 64
Because systemd is forced on you, Firefox is not.
For me a declarative init system was god sent.
Systemd has easy-to-use built-in support for multiseating. Creating a new seat is one command, adding a peripheral to the seat is one command. Reboot and done!
Is systemD(estroyer) extensible? Hell Yes! Its trejectory seems hell-bent (hell inspired?) upon * taking over * the entire GNU/Linux platform. Yeah, * something * like sysD is sorely needed for * server * management: there you & I are not as far apart. But I still rebuke it for the GNU/Linux * desktop * instance. Why? Even absent the bugginess of the project leader's other famed program (pulseaudio), systemD on the desktop is a Frankenstein that is aimed at * taking over * the platform. The intention is spelled out pretty clearly in sysD's own documentation. Soon to came releases of this piece of Totalitarian-ware will have the power to dictate to the rest of us as to how various key components of GNU/Linux will function. Or perhaps even * if * certain things, options we've always had open on the Linux-based desktop will function at all.
The netbook was basically killed-off (and had to be reborn as convertibles) bc ms didn't like this form-factor enough to keep suporting it when Windows 8 hit the consumer stream. Will certain progs be deleted from Linux's ecosystem bc the sysD team decides "we don't have time to continue supporting ___"? The udev and udisks have already had to be changed to accomodate systemd. Other "outliar" objects that * desktop * users may wish to run as a service may become "unsupported software". Or not. But it will be up to the systemD team and IBM, now the parent company of RHEL, Inc. Which is all fine, * maybe *, for the ** server ** guys. Those of us in the desktop ecosphere are used to * near total * configurability. SystemD states in its own docu that part of its mission is to "homogenize" GNU/Linux [paraphrse.]. Yeah, were I admin of a server farm (corporate), sysD would pique my interest: it could make multi-Us a lot easier to manage in a number of ways.
But that doesn't equate to "I want this beast on my desktop". This critical piece of system-software is being handed a * lot * of power, whether or not that power gets abused.
I keep praying for the success of Obarun Linux, and one of the Artix devs recently released a script curiously named "FUCKTHESKULLOFSYSTEMD", wherever he got that name from: this is [apparently] a d/l-able script that supposedly can convert any Arch-based instance from systemD to an OpenRC config--though systemD will not be (fully) uninstalled bc of dependency issues.
Liberty is an important thing to the world. Man should not have to live under tyranny. A guilded cage is still a cage.
* okay * that's * pretty * epic " *b ro *""
The problem with systemd is not that the programs are bad, it's that proponents literally have only vague arguments in favour of it. This led people to look much harder for crazy stuff, and we did find it. It may well be the best thing since sliced bread, but we were only supposed to assume it, not be convinced.
Luke:
Evangelist:
Luke: SAY NO MORE
🍿
I know I'm 2 years late comment wise, but this title brings me back to 2012
You're going strong with surf as browser, eh?
use lynx instead.. w3m is also bloated xD
Too late, someone already recommended me curl. gg.
is sytemd as easy to audit as runit and openrc?
Surely not. When you'll have to debug it then you'll see the advantages of OpenRC, sysvinit or runit.
RedHat shill detected
I thought you pronounce the init system "runit" like "R-unit", not like "run it!"
What alternatives we have to FireFox? Chromium is google bloated too
use terminal based browsing only, use w3m.
Brave
found great alternative - QUTEbrowser
I have no issues with systemd, I have some systems with it and some without it. the systems without it are very simple and do one or two things and do not need systemd's extra features. if these systems break or shutdown improperly it's of no consequence... using an old laptop as a live audio effects processor for example.. systemd is fast booting but can be slow on shutdown due to housekeeping, memory use is around 45 - 100 megs AFAIK. Distributions such as Debian pushed out a buggy version of systemd which broke many installations including my beloved Frankenstein cluster.. this was a thing of beauty that I had run for at least 10 years which i will not get into heavily here. Basically each garbage PC did one thing and did it very well, each piece was disposable and easily replaceable. systemd's introduction into debian was the first time an upgrade broke forcing me to start from scratch. this was not systemd's fault nor debian's. it was partially mine because i had not checked release notes. Why would I if upgrades go without issue for over a decade? I have come to appreciate systemd's usefulness since then. When i am building a configuration that does not fit into the mold of either desktop or server I will use a basic init system. when i need extensive housekeeping and logging I will use systemd.
Hmm, those sweet, sweet IPA tables in the background - a true man of culture I see :D
I *wondered* why I couldn't learn anything about systemd's concrete disadvantages. I'm not deep into the inner workings of Linux yet, but I like minimal software. I try to research various concepts as I come across them. Trying to get an overview of the whole systemd vs other init systems thing turned up only vague platitudes.
I'm trying out a (/“the”) lite Gentoo image for 64-bit Raspberry Pi (highly specific hardware-this makes perfect sense). I genuinely thought I might get
Systemd bad
OpenRC good
runit excellent
what about s6?
GNU shepard is my Lord, I shall not want.
Ironically, surf is a lot slower than FF.
I'm using Devuan Beowulf since few months and it works great with Gnome-3.32. Although, It took some work to configure it. It uses eudev, elogind etc forked from systemd to get the things working. I am also using FreeBSD 12.1, which is way more clean, except for you don't get netflix or prime videos to play in Firefox.
There's nothing wrong with systemd but i would personally prefer a lighter init system like openrc/runit.
Open-RC for lyfe......!!!!
I moved from Arch due to the constant breakages when the distro moved to systemd
Dunno if this helps, but I've been using Arch for 2+ years, starting sometime after the switch. In that time, I've had... I hesitate to say no breakage, but no breakage that I remember.
I think I would still prefer to not use systemd, but unfortunately I make heavy use of the AUR, so my attempt at using obarun didn't last very long. (I'll definitely give it another try if/when I setup a secondary box, though)
Do you think the Linux Kernel is bloated? I do..
Absolutely. Majority of the code is just drives for obscure hardware that will unlikely be used by your regular user.
The best way to counter this is change from a monolith kernel to a microkernel
The word microkernel is a useless bloat like capitalism.
harmful.cat-v.org/words/
@@lrk7838 Btw on gentoo, you can remove all of the obscure drivers without breaking the system or the behaviour of the package manager.
@@Zoltan_Gyarmathi what about compiling a totally personalized kernel? back in the 90's 00's that was a must do..
@@bendover4728 That's what I did.
I don't think the problem with the init is because of being software... It's the target the developer may after. Linus Torvald steped forward and defended them at the beginning of the controversity of ~2013-2014, he then changed his opinion about them because he don't know what they want to achieve and that they may target a environment for bad ideas. So as a result he kicked the devs out of the kernel workgroupe . Some also pointed out that there were unexpected google dns links. first the devs denied it, - then they announced that it would be helpful for systemd but that google created some bad code - in which the google engineers defended their work... Seems strange to me.
In my opinion they should work on a cooperated solution with the kernel team, the free software foundation team and the gnu team.
Aluminium heats could now argue that the us government has programmers in redhead which are working also on systemd...
i don't like the handling of non-existing devices or not available nfs-mounts in fstab of systemd
I'v seen a post that said Systemd won! Hope it's hyperbolic, fuck this NSA botnet wannabe bloat!
OpenBSD will save us all
I cannot hate it because it works well, it does it's job and it is making the lives of many people easier. But It goes against the philosophy on which most unix inspired software is built upon. So I can't say that I hate it because I don't have a reason to hate it. But I do dislike it, because in my eyes it doesn't fit very well. Having such a process that acts like an overlord when it comes to certain things is simply hard for me to imagine flawless. In the end I'm not even that big of an expert so even I don't value my opinion that much.
@@olegcherkasky2755 This process stays above and unifies a lot of other processes. It is unlike the "recommended" simple autonomous programs that do one task perfectly rather than a complex program that does everything decently. Unix was all about small programs that work together rather than overlordship of programs. SystemD is pretty much an overlord of all daemons. If you check your system processes you'll find out that most of your processes are "under" systemd, thus being controlled or commanded by it. Bypassing systemd is almost as hard as bypassing the kernel itself.
I'm not saying that is bad in any way, nor am I saying it should be banned or even adviced against. But some of the most hardcore systemd haters are concerned by the fact that "The entire system so far worked the unix way and introducing the otherway around in core processes like the init system will/may/might lead to issues, problems or straying away from the path followed so far that used to work". Again, I am not defending this view completely mostly because more centralized/"non-unix way" programs are part of linux for a long long time now.
If you do not hate systemd then may I ask why do you use void over arch?
Functionality-wise no, there is in difference. For me it's the corporate stuff telling me how to do computing. No thank you, systemd.
I actually know someone who hates on Btrfs and ZFS because they "violate the Unix philosophy"...
Was this video before or after you moved to Artix? lol
Freedom of choice....pure and simple.
If you are forced to adopt a system plagued with systemd when you don't want to, this "freedom of choice" you are talking about is a blatant lie, plain and simple.
meh systemd is a solution looking for a problem.
I do think there's plenty of valid ciriticms for systemd and I have my own - I don't like that it creates multiple ways of doing things. For instance, if I want to run something on start up as my user, I can either make it a systemd service OR I can add it to my .profile. However none of this is really an argument for why it's "bloated", it's more to do with the way Linux works and fits together.
Firefox is one of the fastest, compared to chromium based browsers anyway, ime. The only reason I don't like it is because they banned dissenter, which even Chrome has
Gavin Vales the quantum engine made it so good, I remember the days firefox was a slow piece of shit software. those days are gone
Imho you are combining two many arguments in you definition of bloated software. Basically what you are saying - if I understood you correctly - is that if software contains a lot of features and is not extensible it is bloated. I think one should leave the extentiality argument out of it. Software that cannot be extended is just that 'not extensible software'. What you still have to address then is the difference between feature rich software and bloated software. What they have in common is that the filosofy is that a lot of functionality is present in both but something becomes bloated if that functionality does not serve a good enough purpose. Looking from this perspective I would not call systemd bloated but for instance Adobe pdf viewer on Windows (sorry couldn't find a good Linux example) is. So contrary to feature rich the word 'bloated' has a negative conotation that in my opinion should be avoided when we talk about software that is just feature rich (such as systemd). P.s. I have no deep preference for systemd or any other init systems but I like your rational arguments in favour of systemd and the fact that you do not shy away from bringing forward possibly unpopular arguments!
I've noticed that people become more rabid about stuff like this the further they get from it actually being a problem for them. LAYER 0 = "I don't use systemd for the following reasons" LAYER 1 = "LAYER 0 doesn't use systemd because it doesn't work for him" LAYER 5 = "LAYER 0 doesn't use systemd because he thinks it sucks!" LAYER = ??? "systemd is NSA bloat the info-collage I saw on 4chan told me so!"
Why use Firefox when we have icecat?
why use icecat when chromium exists?
@anonymous guy brave is based on chromium
Brave is good
Luke Smith next video: WHY AM I STILL GETTING HATE!
A dude once said me that systemd is NSA's backdoor drama
Convenience or? You shouldn't notice your init except at boot or configuring boot. :)
nspawn is really cool though.