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.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    291·
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
      33·
      10 hours ago

      But people centainly will with the reliance on uutils. And it’ll be too late. How people on Lemmy of all places dont get it?

      On systemd, I don’t like it and use another init.

    • OppressedBread@lemmy.mlOP
      37·
      11 hours ago

      You’re right that the GNU toolchain is massive, but the distinction lies in "modularity versus integration". GNU tools are a collection of separate programs that happen to work together, you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system. systemd, however, is a tightly coupled suite where the init, logging, networking, and DNS are interdependent.

      The idea of Linux isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.

      When a single project dictates the entire stack and makes it nearly impossible to replace just one component without rewriting half the OS, that crosses the line from toolchain to platform lock-in, which is a fundamentally different threat to user freedom than a collection of large but separable GNU utilities.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        9 hours ago

        you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system

        Is that so? rm -f /bin/bash and reboot. I’ll wait… Go ahead. You’ll be amazed at how many thing rely on bash. Or indeed sh which is why bash runs in bourne compatible mode when executed as /bin/sh.

        The idea of Linux isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.

        This has never been true. The Linux kernel team themselves reject this silliness with a monolithic kernel that required a very specific toolchain to even build and run. Linux has always had tight integration.

        We’ve had many competing implementations of some things (desktop environments come to mind) but that is not the same as “build a system out of Lego components” as a design goal. It’s what you get when you have no direction. It would be a very stupid design goal.