I am not the author.

  • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honestly, it’s 2024, and as a result, this post gives me a bit of a chuckle. For most purposes, systemd has won, and honestly, I hardly even notice. (Granted, I have only used Linux during the systemd era.) If systemd actually interferes with one’s needs on a technological (not just a vague philosophical) level, little stops them from seeking out a way to use another init system.

    Has it gotten more difficult to use other init systems these days? Yes. However, by the time a person has a problem where systemd can’t do the job and have to use a different init system, they’re probably more than competent enough to create custom services. I also feel like in terms of software support, only the most idiotic, worthless projects have no possible way to port hem to another init system.

      • flying_sheep
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The only thing I liked was arch’s pretty boot sequence … which I stared at for a while because SysV init was so slow.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Busybox init and openRC seem to be the alternatives. They are both useful in embedded contexts where you don’t need much just a program to start a service

      • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I may have misconveyed my meaning. I wasn’t necessarily arguing that systemd has no viable alternatives. I meant to say that where systemd doesn’t work (embedded systems being a good example), chances are the lack of support won’t be a burden for a reasonably skilled user.