this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
104 points (94.1% liked)
Linux
58547 readers
1294 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
what is the argument against using systemd?
Linux people hate change and think software written in 1970 is the perfect software for modern desktops.
It's a large and very complicated piece of software with a single implementation. It's practically impossible to fork, so users are forced to adopt whatever changes the maintainers decide to implement. This could include things like forced dependencies (incompatible with mulb libc for example), or other poor design choices (like binary logging, which is very controversial). And it forces its adoption in places that do not want it (as in cases like the one we're discussing here, where it's becoming harder and harder for Gnome to be used without it).
I'm not going to argue about whether systemd is good software or not. But the biggest problem with it is that it's basically a way for Red Hat to exert control over the entire Linux ecosystem.
Think of it like Chrome/Chromium. Everybody naïvely thought we were never be where we are today when it was announced, but look at where we are today. While it's technically open source and an excellent browser, above all, it's a tool for Google to exert its control over the WWW, such as disabling adblockers, implementing DRM, deciding which CSS/Javascript APIs should (or should not) be adopted, etc. systemd could very well be Red Hat's vehicle for imposing similar requirements on desktop Linux.
It does too many things too well.
Slightly off on that. SystemD does too many things as PID1, and there are a lot of attack vectors that come with that. It doesn't follow the Free Software of ethos of "do one thing, and one thing well".
it's quite modular. I would argue that each individual component does follow that ethos
It is lots of modules but not really that modular. There is little concern about working with anything else.
If it were properly modular, systemd would be built from universal components, which could be used by other init systems. But it's the other way around. Meaning the universal components are created by taking them out of systemd. For example elogind is "extracted" from systemd to be a standalone daemon.
systemd isn't a pid1; systemd-init is
Compared to what? Most services do not run PID1
It's not called systemD. It's just systemd.
systemdeez nuts
My guess (i dont understand it all that well) is that people are less again using systemd, than against a growing dependency on systemd. If something bad happens to it, it could drag down other big elements of the linux ecosystem with itself.