31
Why use something other than SystemD? (piefed.world)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/linuxquestions@lemmy.zip
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'll admit I have used Artix, Peppermint OS (Devuan), and Void Linux because I thought the idea of a SystemDless distro sounded cool. It wasn't because I had a problem with SystemD. It's more so that I love that numerous options exist for different system components. For me it's sad to see that certain features or applications require SystemD be present. I like SystemD, just to be clear. I also like the freedom to choose. Maybe, i'm missing something. What do y'all think? What do you use and why? If you use OpenRC or something, why? I'm guessing most people use SystemD and don't give it any thought which is fair.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

Because Microsoft has back channel influence on systemd development^1^

It's fine now, but the future trajectory is locked into the path Android has followed - extending dominance over all widely used distributions, then gradually using that dominance to choke and extinguish any alternatives.

Additionally, I saw a site around 3 months ago that VIGOROUSLY documented the financial ties from amutable to Microsoft and Google. I have been looking for a good 20 minutes but can't find it. If this rings a bell for anyone that can remember more details please comment!

  1. Lennart Poettering was a Microsoft employee until recently

https://itsfoss.com/news/amutable-linux-security/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    I find that to be a pretty weak argument given that the Linix foundation is funded almost exclusively by big tech

    It is almost as if they have a incentive to support the thing that makes them billions of dollars

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    No, you're misunderstanding me. They aren't trying to kill Linux.

    Rather, they are trying to add a walled garden to it that they can use to drive out hobbyists and privacy enthusiasts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I think they might just be supporting something that serves their use case well. Both those companies manage massive amounts of servers that benefit from systemd being what it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    If it wasn't useful for them it wouldn't make sense to invest money in it. I am not trying to make the argument that this is some kind of single minded hatred playing out.

    With that said, how is Linux improved by having a single " init system " effectively steered by the worst of big tech? Systemd is becoming harder to get away from and reducing interest in alternatives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah no that is definitely the case. As OP said, alternatives are good. I just think that having a single init system everywhere is not what they're trying to accomplish, they're just investing in what they want to use themselves.

    Though I guess in the end what they're trying to do is not really what matters, what matters is what actually happens. And to that end I'm really glad that void and company still maintain alternatives to systemd.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    I don't think it's a good idea to ascribe any benevolence to Systemd, though.

    I have used systemd extensively for work in huge multi tenant environments, and I am in no way saying it just sucks and has no benefits.

    I am saying that accepting it as-is will lead to Linux becoming a locked down, big tech owned slopfest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I don't see any evidence of that

    ☹️ 1
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    Do you think Microsoft ever tried to use a tactic of embracing a competing technology, extending their influence over it, and then using their leverage to extinguish the threat?

    If yes, do you think they have stopped doing that currently?

    Do you think Google and Microsoft are currently aligned with the technocratic destruction of EU and US legal status quo?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent