[TUHS] Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' • The Register

[segaloco via TUHS]

On Thursday, June 13th, 2024 at 9:47 AM, Arrigo Triulzi via TUHS <tuhs at tuhs.org> wrote:

> On 13 Jun 2024, at 17:39, Clem Cole clemc at ccc.com wrote:
> 
> > IMO systemd, was >>not<< a net positive - it falls so many of these tests WRT to good programming and good ideas.
> 
> 
> Binary logs, ’nuff said.
> 
> Good sysadmins live & die by grep and being able to visually detect departures from the norm by just looking at the “shape” of logs scrolling down a screen (before), terminal window now.
> 
> Yours disgusted since v1 of that abomination.
> 
> Arrigo

Part of what irks me is the lack of choice.  Just like many outlets will use GNU extensions to otherwise POSIX components, leaving the rest of the world out in the rain, several bits of the Linux ecosystem have backed systemd as the one true way and are hobbled if even usable at all with other init systems out there.  User software shouldn't have any attachment to a particular init system, it isn't meant to provide "services" beyond run this script at this time based on the conditions of boot, manage terminal lines, and maybe offer some runlevels to compartmentalize operating environments.  I've seen it said elsewhere that the amount of surface area being shoved into PID 1 can only lead to disaster.

Are there any known attempts in the modern age to roll Linux with something resembling research/BSD init?  That would be a nice counter to the proliferation of systemd.  Even if it doesn't make a dent in the actual uptake, at least it'd feel cathartic to have an alternative in the opposite direction.

- Matt G.