I will simply not store any data there. There is no need to resort to building my own distribution with a systemd fork, just as I don’t use this week´s Firefox fork because the shitty features of Firefox can be disabled with 1 click.

Using barely maintained forks because of optional features is a security risk.

The laws they’re trying to support require very limited information, but they’re storing far more than that and they’ve actively decided not to protect it properly.

All systemd is storing is the DOB in YYYY-MM-DD format.

So I would too change distro to a non systemd one, although options might be quite limited.

Just use the regular, non-California edition of your regular distribution instead of jumping through hoops for a feature that doesn't affect almost the entire planet anyway.

Helps pedos find your children, is almost lost in the crowd of many reasons to dislike systemd and what it's doing.

That’s a lot less likely to be the case; I am aware of just one example of what you describe, and that’s the example you give, whereas I’ve “sped up” my own code many times, by accidentally breaking stuff.

Rather than assume the presence of backdoors, the rational thing is simply to work out why you are seeing a difference in performance, and to determine if you fixed something by accident, or (the more likely scenario) if you broke something by accident

Ah, well. I don't think I'll be changing my distro from Arch unless this becomes a real issue for me. Thanks for the recommendation though.

https://nosystemd.org/

https://without-systemd.org/ too.

And there's MX and AntiX too, if wanting something like Debian/Ubuntu but with init-freedom.

And several other Devuan respins.

Or even PCLinuxOS. While it uses rpm package format, it uses apt as its package manager, so you don't even need to learn a new package manager. And of course, no systemd.

Dozens more options too.

Wait until it actually gets bad, there will hopefully be user-friendly distros to address the situation.

No need to wait past tipping points where harm is done. There have always been easy options. At least in all 22.5 years I've been using Linux. That never stopped. Just a corporation and its eager stooges perpetrated a psyop to mislead people into thinking systemd was the one true way. It's not. It never was. That was marketing lies.

Init-freedom ftw. :) Choice is good. Clean code is good. Maintainable and easily forkable code is good. UNIX philosophy is good (esp. "do one thing, well"). KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is good.

While systemd may be free software in name/license only, in practice, it's abusive. Social rot. Brain rot. Not good. Avoid.

I don't know. I don't think I'll ever leave Arch as long as it's available.

Linux ran just fine before systemd was created. It can be removed again. It's not a critical dependency.

There plenty of distros that don’t use systemd.

Slackware and Mint DE come to mind.

Because systemd isn’t required for Linux. It’s just one popular init system.

Fair Warning: Long anti-systemd rant ahead.

Here's a list of some fine, totally usable, and well maintained Linux distros that don't use systemd:

• Artix Linux (offers 4 different supported init systems)
• Gentoo Linux (supports systemd/openrc, with documentation provided on how to manually support others)
• Void Linux (uses runit)
• Alpine Linux (uses openrc, most docker containers use this as their base)
• Devuan (offers 5 different supported init systems)
• Antix (offers 5 different supported init systems)
• MX Linux (offers systemd/sysv init)

Honestly, I was on Artix for 8 years and am on Gentoo/openrc now (been about 6 months). I never really got the systemd hype. I don't even bother with it on my servers where I just run Alpine Linux. It's just...not really needed unless the dev of a particular DE or app doesn't know how to use basic GNU tools and/or doesn't know they don't need init for such and such feature.

Yeah yeah, systemd isn't just an init system. People make that argument all the time, but honestly, that's actually an argument against using it.

Systemd is poorly designed if the init component can't be separated out from it's various other utilities. If I could use systemd just as init, maybe it wouldn't be...y'know, crap. But no, it has to handle DNS, cron, logging, login managment, etc.

Again, no problem if the systemd devs wanted to make it a suite of optional tools, but init systems are and always will be best if their codebases are as tiny as possible while still being usable and secure. Init's only job is to fork other processes that the user specifies, that's it.

Honestly if some software uses systemd, I'm not likely to use it unless someone's paying me to. Heck, at work I use all sorts of shitty tools that frustrate me to no end in exchange for money.

But if I do happen to use software that requires systemd, on a system that I own, I'm likely to just go into the code, rip out the parts that utilize it, rewrite it, and recompile the binary because fuck that. Yes, I've done this. Most of the time, it's not that hard. But I can count on one hand the amount of times this has been necessary, because the maintainers of these non-systemd distros are able to write basic scripts that hook into the various init systems and you just use them.

And if some major DE like GNOME or KDE relies on systemd, I'd just say, fuck'em. There's plenty of DE's that don't and a multitude of WM's that never will, and good, they shouldn't.

Rant over.

What critical components do think require systemd? Name them.

BTW the community can pressure Red Hat and Novel to switch, their contracts have to be renewed periodically.

Gentoo with OpenRC.

the major distros use systemd

Circular reasoning. Not well hidden enough. ;P

Major distros cannot simply switch to a fork on a whim because they need to be completely sure that it is stable and will not cause any compatibility issues.

Yes, because that circular definition would then break. LOL.

No, seriously, they can. Init-freedom is alive and well. Many distros do many init systems. It's not as non-trivial as your scare tactic tries to make out.

I know it's not. That's the point.