I have seen so many times that systemd is insecure, bloated, etc. So i wonder ¿does it worth to switch to another init system?

  • yum13241@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The complaints are just a meme at this point. If you have to ask, don’t bother.

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
    cake
    M
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you have to ask, no.

    I say this as someone who doesn’t use systemd. There’s not much benefit to it. It’s cool to do if you’re an enthusiast or experimentalist, but from a practical stand point, systemd is most practical.

    I use gentoo with openRC btw.

  • nethad@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even you asking this question means you should not. Systemd is perfectly fine for most people and the people that dislike it have their very specific reasons. Just use what your distro gives you, you shouldn’t have to care about these things.

  • ElPresidente@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you have to ask, the benefits of another init system than systemd starts and stops at “you look smart.” I like runit a lot and would even recommend Void Linux as a daily driver if that’s your speed, but honestly anyone who actually was around before systemd knew how much sysvinit and co sucked.

  • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Keep systemd. People can cry all they like but it’s the best init system we have right now. Unless you want to start building a better one, i guess.

  • KindaABigDyl@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Systemd is a large piece of software. There are ways to make it smaller and disable various modules for it, but usually by default it’s very heavy.

    With a traditional init system, it’s just an init system, and you’ll use other other programs to do the other things. This basically means a chain of interconnected bash scripts. Perhaps you’ll run into some integration issues. Probably not though. It’ll be mostly the same.

    There is no real advantage to this from a user perspective beyond a philosophical one. Systemd works quite well at doing the things it tries to do, but it’s the Unix philosophy to “do one thing and do it well,” and some people care very deeply that systemd does not follow their interpretation of that philosophy, and that’s certainly a fair reason to not use it.

    However, if you’re not having problems with using systemd, I’d say don’t bother switching.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Systems is not the Unix philosophy, at least, not to me. It tries to handle so many different things and use cases. “One thing” normally means a small thing, and initialising everything you could ever think of is not a small thing.

  • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    systemd is insecure, bloated, etc

    [Citation needed]

    If a distro that doesn’t use systemd ends up booting much faster or being much easier to configure, maybe those are features you care about. But switching away from systemd in this case is merely an implementation detail. What you’re really doing is moving from a distro to another one that serves you better.

    Otherwise, the choice of init system has very little impact to the average user. Maybe it’s worth it to switch init systems if you hate the syntax of unit files and/or the interface of systemctl/journalctl and you use them often enough to warrant the effort. The people who want to use alternatives to systemd without having such a practical issue with it are doing so for philosophical reasons.

  • ガブリエル@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Short answer: if you’re asking this, then it’s not worth it.

    Long answer: Ditching systemd in favor of something else is usually an act of experimentation. Folks that do it usually have had a negative experience with systemd, be it in its usage or from a problem they had that prevented them to boot their computers due to the tightly-coupled relationship between mainstream distros and systemd.

    Also, preference is involved here, so you might prefer to assemble your system with independent pieces instead of a full-blown suite like systemd’s. You might also not like systemd’s UX so, as a user, you end up wanting to try something else.

  • TheBestAdmin@social.pluto.lat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is the experience of trying new distros very cool? yes

    Should you abandon systemd? no

    systemd is not bloated and it’s not insecure. If you don’t have any problems, don’t switch (unless you wanna have some fun trying new things, if you do, run a vm).

  • sederx@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the only reason to stick to one of those init systems is that you already know everything about them and you dont want to relearn a bunch of stuff.

    other than that i see 0 benefits to skip systemd