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

  • zkikiz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It used to be that everything in Linux was a file, ideally a text file, so if you could find the right file you could access or change what you wanted. Systemd is a big program that manages a bunch of stuff and creates unique commands within its programs for doing so, which moves away from that principle and turns system management into what feels a bit more microsofty (like the registry editor program vs editing config files, etc) and a lot of people don’t like that. But to its credit, it does solve a few problems with cobbling together a modern system that doesn’t suck.

    • M-Reimer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually it doesn’t really move away that much from the “everything is a file” principle. For example a “service” is a file describing how to properly start a particular service and if you enable a service, then a symlink is created to your service file, …

    • 601error@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a Windows app developer, I wish Windows service management, boot control, and logging were more like that of systemd. What we have is so much more janky and Sisyphean to work with.

      • zkikiz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah but I’ve interacted with it a lot and most of my interaction is commands sent through one of their programs. Versus scripts like init.d whose contents I can easily inspect and modify. Init scripts aren’t config files, they’re directly executable code.