Should we plan on systemd ?

[Arnox]

I think funnily enough one of the big problems with SysVInit is simply general accessibility for the standard IT user. I've used systemd's systemctl in both home user and web server contexts, and I gotta say, man... It's pretty damn convenient and self-explanatory. "systemctl status", "systemctl start", "systemctl stop", and boom. You can now manage all services on a basic level on the system with just those three commands. With SysVInit, maybe I'm just being dumb here, but I don't think SysVInit has any equivalent to systemctl, or if it does, not one that is as accessible to us IT normies. Or maybe it's simply a documentation/learning issue. I dunno, but when I try to read up on SysVInit, I quickly start getting confused. Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure I could understand it if I tried, but as an end user, I don't quite understand why I should invest the time if I'm not a developer at all.

[CharlesV]

service --status-all
service service_name {start|stop|reload|restart|force-reload|status}

and with the AMAZING MX Service Manager ... is wonderful !

not *everything * happens in service ( same as systemd ) ... but its close. and if you have to ... you can drop it into one of the proper init.d folders and away you go :-)

[txm0523]

As just an end user and not an IT person, I have used SystemD distros. About the only thing I liked about systemd was with CLI statement " systemd-analyze blame " was to find out what services were bogging down my PC on bootup. I could then stop those services to get quicker boot up times. other than that, I do prefer to run Linux with sysVinit.

[artytux]

So in your mindset, your original Q
@CharlesV
Should we be planning on a future of sytemd?

I know that the years can move on so quickly and what we thought was a long way off now is staring back at us because tomorrow/next week is that moment years into the future and going back to the original Q that took my interest what do you reckon ? of all these things.

In the short time I've used Linux I know it was/is the best thing I ever did moving to, I know from using systemd it has many tools for a user, I know that I would like to see in the far future a non systemd option still available because meh dunno this all too many eggs in the one basket and it seems to drift away from the easy going, do one thing and just Be ! Linux . Naive yeah.

[asinoro]

In the rapidly evolving times we live in, which init will prevail depends on how compatible it will be with artificial intelligence, because artificial intelligence will be the one that will manage and maintain operating systems in the future!

[artytux]

AI well it isn't all terrible an article in FOSS Force

https://fossforce.com/2024/08/ibm-repor ... -the-bill/

[DukeComposed]

I've used systemd's systemctl in both home user and web server contexts, and I gotta say, man... It's pretty damn convenient and self-explanatory.

This isn't true. systemd is most certainly not explanatory and, in fact, it considers abstracting away its functionality from users to be a feature. Convenient? Perhaps, but it's not helping you learn or grow or making you better equipped to run your system. Convenient is dangerous.

We've already had forum posts complaining about a systemctl command failing in a sysvinit environment and what really scares me is the sentiment that "I want to run a service called foo, why should I have to learn the name of foo's config file first?"

systemctl is convenient. So convenient, in fact, that now you don't have to worry about where your service is. This is actually bad. We've been seeing college students enter their adult years with literally no idea what directories are:

[A]round the fall of 2017... a lecturer in the psychology department at the University of Sussex told a class full of research students to pull a file out of a specific directory and was met with blank stares.

Call this a Googling of the mind if you want. "I don't know what the best website is for checking the weather, I just know to type 'weather' into the search bar and click the first link." You might wind up on a reputable site. You might wind up on weather-is-controlled-by-space-lizards.conspiracy. If you don't have enough wit about you to know the difference between, say, NOAA and Accuweather, you are screwed.

This matters. It is important for users of their machine to know enough about it to be able to fix it when it breaks. Yes, I know, 99.9% of the time systemctl will just do what you want it to do. But it's going to break. It's systemd. It's not good code. Something will always go wrong eventually, especially as its growing functionally outpaces its regression testing framework. Driving a car is a fairly simple operation, too. Especially with power steering and anti-lock brakes and backup cameras. All of that is great, but it's still important that teenagers with a driver's permit learn how to refill a tank of fuel, check the oil and understand what the lines on the dipstick mean, check tire tread with a penny, pump the brakes in case ABS fails, and use a tire pressure gauge. To not have new drivers even know about these things is negligent. The annals of tow truck drivers everywhere are full of stories of kids complaining about how "Dad said I could use the car this weekend, what do you mean I have to put gasoline in it?!" Or my favorite, "Well now that you're here, can't you do it for me?"

You don't always have the luxury of taking your car into the shop and having a professional do a 7-point inspection for you. Sometimes your tire starts losing pressure when you're a hundred miles from home and you need to figure out what you're gonna do. You never want to be so dependent on your car's decision-making status quo that you end up locked inside it.

Just as letting the Jiffy Lube folks always maintain your vehicle isn't going to make you a better driver, systemctl sure as hell isn't going to make you a better system administrator. You might not care. You might not want to be a better system administrator, but bear in mind that ignorance of how broken your machine is impacts other people online, just as driving an unsafe car impacts other motorists on the road. The only difference is that there are laws against unsafe driving and making unsafe vehicles. "I made system administration so convenient that when my thing breaks no one knows how to fix it" isn't the slam dunk you might think it is.

[LinuxSpring1]

I too resist systemd , though the original Idea to Update boot software was a good one It's became an invasive program that wants to control every part of the system. I too believe one of the great benefits of linux is choice. So There are other boot systems that could be adopted when system V is no longer viable. Not to mention systemd will become a security risk at some point. Jesse Smith of Distrowatch wrote a good article a few weeks back comparing the different init options.
found here https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20240527#qa

Amen to that. The tendency of SystemD to control and drive changes into Linux which were not part of its original statement has left many of us wondering on the end state and motives. Especially if those are going to be beneficial to Linux Ecosystem. One of the way that SystemD will harm linux is the rigid straight jacket that it has forced upon Linux. If there is a change that is required to be made in Linux somewhere down the line, SystemD may become an impediment. And inability to change with circumstances is a sure shot way to irrelevance.

...
Well, I've always thought of myself as an informed techy guy and I think standardisation is (mostly) a good thing. No standards, no TCP/IP. No USB. No WiFi. No Linux kernel. Heck, no APIs at all: every API, whether a small web API or a huge OS API, like Win32 or indeed the Linux kernel , is an attempt at standardising access.

The problem is not standardisation. The problem is simply bad/sloppy engineering, both in the design and the implementation phases.

We should not confuse protocol standardization with application standardization ... for protocols it is relevant (speaking the same language, TCP, etc...), for low-level applications it is a monopoly in the long term leading to a lack of diversity (a lack of resilience and/or simplicity). So it is also a problem of standardisation (even for the kernel).

That is a very valid point. Standardization when it is focused on protocols and text is fine. Imagine if the TCP/IP protocol that won over its ISO counterpart had taken upon itself to define how firewalls should operate or switches should work or type of medium where it should be used or clock speed and so on. It would not have been success. It succeeded because it kept it Simple and restricted itself to the problem definition solution, i.e. boot process.

[Freja]

From Website description
“MX Linux – Midweight Simple Stable Desktop OS”

So simply, “MX of systemd only”will breaks Important Concept of MX?

We awaiting for Main development members action…

[artytux]

Would it be fair to say 'Is systemd trying to make Linux evolve into a Microscoft wannabe' ? similar to what some people say, Ubuntu already is on that road being the Microsoft of Linux, I don't know enough about Ubuntu only what i read and what they did years ago (phoning home). No not Ubuntu bashing just stating the fact that sly of hand from them is similar to what all the other big tech Co's do, they don't get nicer they just get greedier.
I'm guessing that M$ is utilizing that ideal of 'Keep you friends and you enemies closer' as it moves into the Linux landscape, I could never buy into that 'Oh no M$ loves Linux', yeah right, when money is the driver there are no friends.