I don’t hate systemd, but I prefer OpenRC and usually use it on my Debian systems. My preference is purely vibes based though, and I think most of the anti-systemd arguments in common usage are a bit silly.
My biggest problem with systemd is that Red Hat has basically used it to push their-way-or-the-highway on many Linux distros. That said, in many situations systemd is better than what came before. Except systemd-networkd. It’s a PITA as far as I’m concerned.
Systemd-boot and the service files and timers are pretty neat. Works fine as an init too I guess
Anything that lets me avoid the aberration that is Grub is great.
Systemd is pretty cool honestly
Enjoy your botnet.
Can you elaborate? Are there a lot of security holes in systemd? (Genuine question)
I’m pretty sure their arguments boil down to “big company bad” as systemd is developed by Red Hat. Putting a single entity’s products in charge of several basic functions of the computer (like booting, init, daemons, networking) is seen as a bad idea, especially Red Hat which disgraced itself by making the RHEL source code available only to customers (which does not violate the license), but so far I don’t know of any solid evidence of security holes caused by either incompetence or malice.
I dislike journalctl more than systemd. And I don’t get what’s the advantage of systemctl vs previous solutions, why would that of all things make one reconsider.
I miss rc.local and crontabs. Now if you excuse me I have a cloud to yell at.
The only advantage I see is that it actually seems to keep a better handle on the status of the process/service. The old-style init scripts would often get out of sync and not realize that a process had died, or if they did they would repeatedly respawn a service that would just die again. Maybe that was less of a problem in later years than I experienced earlier, but it was there.
The whole init.d system felt very ad-hoc with every script working a little bit differently, giving different output styles, etc.
