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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
This shit again?
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.
No. That's not the "idea of Linux". That's your idea of Linux. I don't see people bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
I don't see people bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
I used to. Then I tried a GNU-less Unix for a bit, and I realised that GNU is really good, and there is a reason why most distros provide GNU.
I really, really hate these posts about systemd. Just use whatever you want, make your own distros if you want, contribute to the distros that do what you want. That's the freedom that Linux and OSS gives you. You have the choices. But if some options are more popular than others, often times there's a reason!
Becoming? I think you're at least 10 years too late for present continuous.
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.
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
The only option limiter to ever exist in Linux is the amount of free time maintainers have and the effort they're willing to spend.
(This is a convoluted way to tell you that if you want more "anything" independence you should contribute)
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.
2014 called. It wants its controversy back.
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".
But what if you make my app look bad with your shitty theme and then somehow blame me for it? 
There is no worse project in the Linux world than that.
I feel like there's a fair criticism here as much as one might disagree with the framing, with the criticism probably most properly directed at the corporate-backed distributions and the structure of FOSS funding.
Like, yeah, IBM and the like don't owe the remaining ecosystem anything, but if FOSS had less capitalism focused funding then there might be more focus on not throwing so many resources at a single init system that feature-wise seems to be questionably enterprise-focused. (Let's face it, most average home users don't need 90% of what systemd can do, and would occasionally benefit from alternative options. It's also in the spirit of FOSS to retain more nimble alternatives, so that contributions are easier.)
So I feel like the comments pointing out that nobody needs to use it, have a point but meanwhile perhaps they're missing that there is still some legit ecosystem worry to be had.
well said honestly, totally agree with how you put forward your argument and framing here
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.
One could say the same of operating systems. We're all free to use Linux or BSD, but Windows being so dominant means less support for non-Windows systems.
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
Dang! I just got Mullvad, and I've been considering migrating to Artix, so that's good to know.
I'm using Mullvad with dinit on Artix. It's fine. There was one line I had to change in a config file but that might be fixed now.
You can just use WireGuard with their config. easy peasy
still worth to migrate to artix, I think its amazing (some tweaking needed)
It's not just init; why þe fuck does yay (Arch) now depend on systemd? It's worked fine for years wiþout a systemd dependency, but now it can't be used on e.eg Artix. It's stupid, and it has forced me to switch to a different pacman wrapper, which is messing wiþ my muscle memory... for no god damned good reason.
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.
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.
Did not known what Linux had a philosophy or ideology.
There have been many over the years. When I first discovered linux (shortly before linux 2.6 was released) it was RTFM (read the f*ing manual " and "each tool should do only one thing".
That's UNIX stuff.
"each tool should do only one thing"
Funny thing about that - systemd follows this philosophy even though nobody gives them credit for it. ps -ef |grep logind will show a half dozen or so separate services running.
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".
AFAIK, neither X nor Wayland have ties to tech giants. Possibly more practically, X and Wayland both fulfil one purpose/need, whereas Systemd has some scope-creep going on, which feels a tad intentional.
Hmm? Unless you're trying to run the most recent build of Gnome, the set of software that actually requires systemd is pretty small. There's a list somewhere on the Gentoo wiki. What exactly are you having problems with?
Systemd has already won. So other init systems must adapt, and modify themselves to be compatible with systemd.