I know I’m not the only one that said this but I really can’t stand how systemd is becoming “the norm” init system for every major distro, this is bad.
it is especially bad when certain apps are built specifically for systemd, locking users behind a specific init system and compatibility issues spark because you don’t use a mainstream one , this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os, picking and choosing what goes on and off while still being usable.
I switched to artix Linux with openRC a while ago the moment systemd added code for potential age verification, they called it malicious compliance but I really didn’t like the smell of that, now I’m fighting tooth and nail with some applications because they’re systemd dependent, resulting in me creating custom scripts to mitigate their issues.
In a way it was a brilliant plot by the “elites”.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, in the time of the open web, with independent free operating systems on the rise the ruling elite of billionaires and their pet governments saw the very real risk of losing control over the masses. Just imagine: Everybody from young Timmy to Grandma Esther could learn (and was encouraged! I fondly remember an HTML course in an “old people newspaper” my grandpa read) to learn programming, build their own website connect and speak their mind on a net was completely uncontrolled by states. No algorithms that burrow your tweet, no way to ‘cancel’ unwelcome opinions. And the same was true if you used free software: The ability to - at least in theory - look at the sourcecode of the tools you use, check for backdoors and make changes and even recompile everything afterwards is extremely dangerous to authorities.
They followed the good old “embrace extend extinguish” playbook. Give people ways that are seemingly more accessible and easy to publish online - no need for writing HTML! - push those services and let people forget what empowerment they had. No, they didn’t ban private websites… they just taught people to stop creating or looking for them. On the free operating system front they first donated to some key projects, give people prominent in the community well paying jobs, let them work on open source projects in their work time… openly endorse specific open source projects and steer the community slowly, very slowly into a direction where key elements become more and more complex. Too complex for a single person or a small team to fully understand or maintain. Now you need more infrastructure, more manpower, more funding. And who has the funding? Just guess…
The next step is to make the software that the user needs more controllable. Just remember: Not that long ago you could walk into a computer store, buy a Floppy / CD / DVD with software and install and use it as long as you had a physical copy of it. No online activation, no accounts, no way to remotely disable it. With ever more stuff moving from installed software on your computer to services running online, with the rising need to have some form of subscription and account to simply use the software they regained control.
Now they are coming for the open source applications. With ever more Linux programs being dependent on Systemd and with corporations having control over the development thereof it will get harder to port this software over to other systems (say BSDs) or even Linux systems not running Systemd. With the upcoming age-verification laws all over the world this has… nasty implications.
If you couple all of the above with the already compromised hardware we all are using we are approaching truly dystopic territories: Do you think you really have control over your computer? Well, if so, i would suggest researching what theoretical can be done with the nice combo of the Intel Management Engine (or its equivalents), AMT and TPM…
Perhaps i am just an tinfoil hat wearing paranoiac, but the state of the digital world in the year of our lord 2026 is something i would not have envisioned in my darkest nightmares from 30 years ago.
It’s Open Source. Nobody needs to use it, and it’s especially not all-inclusive. That being said, it’s also not new at all as it’s been around in most distros for well over a decade. It has its pros and cons like anything.
Your assumption that “freedom” has something to do with Linux writ large is misguided though. You have distros that have communal decision making, and if they find a benefit to systemd, then they’ll use systemd. Don’t use that distro if you don’t like it. There’s your freedom of choice.
It’s Open Source. Nobody needs to use it
I didn’t mention anything about people needing to use it.
You have distros that have communal decision making, and if they find a benefit to systemd, then they’ll use systemd. Don’t use that distro if you don’t like it. There’s your freedom of choice.
I don’t have an issue with distros using systemd, my issue lies in how major distributions implemented systemd without other options, which created an environment where app developers have to build for the most common init system in mind, you don’t think that’s an issue? having apps only compatible with one init system like how some apps are only compatible with windows, that’s not libre, its still pushing users towards a specific obvious choice
systemd works best, scales well and causes less pain at maintaining
The “less pain” you experience today might come with the cost of being tied to the systemd ecosystem. If a future version introduces a breaking change or a bug that affects the whole stack, there is no easy “switch” to a lighter alternative without rebuilding the system, its closely tied to the Linux kernel and does more than it should.
though I agree with you on being scalable and easy to maintain that’s one of the pros of it being a monolithic suite, everything just works
Thank goodness I’m not a major distro maintainer and don’t have to deal with all that shit. However, the times I did come into contact with it weren’t as bad as with upstart and sysvinit.
Let me stir up your anxiety with this simple question: that if future version of kernel introduces a breaking change or a bug that affects the whole stack?
please try another service manager that is not 20 years old before developing your opinion on this. you might hate it or whatever, but it’s better than to keep saying “systemd is better than sysvinit!!” quietly ignoring the actual systemd alternatives people are using that are not pre-historic. dinit/runit are ones I’ve used previously and were very good and did the same things systemd did for me as a desktop user
I don’t know what ur asking tbh, rephrase.
Apply the same worries to the kernel, does your panic holds?
You sound new to the ecosystem at large, and I don’t mean that to be condescending, just that you may not have all the context needed to understand why it exists. Any distro that exists right now can flip back to SysV if they want to. They just don’t want to. It may be more flexible to the neckbeards, but it’s massively more comprehensive in scaling and integrating than a set of Init scripts. It has huge benefits to system integrators, OEMs, and especially the people who manage the largest concentration of Linux deployments: Datacenter Ops teams.
The fact that you, a Desktop user takes issue with that is meaningless to the ecosystem at large. I manage thousands of deployed bare metal machines, and I’d never switch back, because it SysV was fucking painful. Sure it was easier to debug in some cases, but was it as useful or reliable? Not even close.
Just go use something else and stop letting it bother you. You’ll feel better in the long run.
As someone who does manage more than 100 linux systems. I would choose systemd over anything else any fucking day.
Well…don’t overspeak. There WILL eventually be something better, and then people will complain about that as well 🤣
telling me I’m new and I don’t have context isn’t contributing anything to this conversion.
you can start by making a counter argument, someone mentioned GNU tool chain reliance, they did a good job of swaying my opinion.
Why would I care about swaying your opinion? Nobody here responding to you is invested in YOUR opinion on the matter, or cares what you think about it. They are simply correcting your misinformed attitude about some things from what I can see.
If anything they’re concerned you’re running around in the world with misguided opinion, and potentially misinforming others.
this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os
Err… it’s “freedom” as in “you are free to run your own system using whatever software you wish” not “freedom” as in “distros and devs have a duty to support your freedom to run any specific software you happen to like”.
Let’s turn down the entitlement dial a bit.
didn’t say that distros have to bend for my will in regards to needing to include options other than systemd, everyone is free to publish whatever they wish and If I don’t like it, I won’t use it, simple as that.
I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options
It would seem my point is not getting through (ie. I must not have expressed it well enough).
You having freedom doesn’t mean other people have a duty to support what you do - it just means they don’t have legal ground to stop you.
For example, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that newspaper must publish whatever you write - it just means the police won’t come knocking on your door at 5am because you of something you wrote.
The “idea of linux” (by which I take you mean the idea of FOSS in general, not of the kernel specifically) isn’t to support anything and everything.
Does dropping 32 bit go against the “idea of linux”? Does software being developed/tested only on specific distros go against it? Do devs that only supporting glibc because they don’t care about musl go against the idea of linux?
I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options
Nope, nothing actually limits the options of people who don’t like systemd: if they want to run some FOSS piece of software whose upstream devs don’t care about openrc (or whatever init of choice), they’ll just have to fork the projects, put the work in, and the upstream devs won’t be able to stop them in any way.
This is what the “freedom” in FOSS means. Twisting it to mean that upstream goes against “the idea of linux” if they don’t support whatever thing you care about and they don’t is entitled.
That ship has sailed. Systemd isn’t going anywhere. The upside is you can run a distro that uses an alternative init if you want. There’s runit, sysV, and openrc that I can think of off the top of my head.
You dont have to like, or use systemd. That’s the beauty of Linux.
Kinda curious what applications give you trouble without systemd? I ran Void linux for like 2 years and now i’m on Guix, and never really had issues with applications because of systemd not being present.
mullvad vpn refuses to run on non-systemd init systems, had to do heavy tweaking to get it to run but ultimately ended up using the “manual” wireshark method.
I don’t have anything against mullvad, I’m a huge fan of their service but that’s one example
Ah, did not know that actually. I think i used the official mullvad cli on NixOS once since they had it packaged anyway, but on other distros i always used wireguard to connect, so that explains why i haven’t encountered that.
this can’t be true! i was told that there was no controversy over systemd co-option of the inits!!! lol
my only gripe is that it does too much; more than an init system should be doing and i got to experience this first hand when i had to add a bunch of containers to systemd to use them.
Idk. about the Linux idea and the freedom being at risk.
You’ve chosen another init system, they’ve chosen theirs -hopefully- for technical reasons.
As far as I see your choice and freedom is not constrained. You are free to mix and build whatever suits your needs.
Idk. about the Linux idea and the freedom being at risk.
imagine this, you’re a windows user ready to make the jump, you’re looking at different distros and they’re all have a systemd init system.
you finally choose a distro and make the jump, you use ur os for a few months and you feel ready to explore the vast universe of different distros with different flavors, you had a great experience after all.
and then you switch to something like void Linux, technically able people will have no problem switching to this but someone who is used to the convince of systemd just because “it works” might just go back to what they’re comfortable with, this doesn’t encourage exploration and freedom of choice because systemd does everything for you and the apps you love and use might not be compatible with something other than systemd unless you heavily tweak things.
You’ve chosen another init system, they’ve chosen theirs -hopefully- for technical reasons.
Totally agree with you on this, not saying people shouldn’t choose their init system, they’re free to do so.
Again. Even exploration is choice.
Nobody owes you the experience you are mapping out here.
I didn’t say people have to explore, I know its a choice
I feel this but with libadwaita apps. Stick out like a sore thumb, can’t theme them, and many aren’t even GNOME’s own core apps.
This many times. The devs go out of their way to curb any attemp of customization outside their “guidelines”.
There is no worse project in the Linux world than that.
what is the difference between the adoption of systemd and that of X or Wayland?
aren’t those equally “mainstream” and don’t they also leave almost no chance to have an alternative (especially for the average user)?
this is a genuine question because, while I know and understand the sentiment against systemd, I realized just now that in the 20 years I’ve been on Linux many things I’ve used were kinda against “freedom”.
Did not known what Linux had a philosophy or ideology.
I expect there will be a popular systemd fork soon enough it they continue adding bs like that
