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.

  • ell1e@leminal.spaceEnglish
    13·
    1 day ago

    I feel like there’s a fair criticism here as much as one might disagree with the framing, with the criticism probably most properly directed at the corporate-backed distributions and the structure of FOSS funding.

    Like, yeah, IBM and the like don’t owe the remaining ecosystem anything, but if FOSS had less capitalism focused funding then there might be more focus on not throwing so many resources at a single init system that feature-wise seems to be questionably enterprise-focused. (Let’s face it, most average home users don’t need 90% of what systemd can do, and would occasionally benefit from alternative options. It’s also in the spirit of FOSS to retain more nimble alternatives, so that contributions are easier.)

    So I feel like the comments pointing out that nobody needs to use it, have a point but meanwhile perhaps they’re missing that there is still some legit ecosystem worry to be had.