It might be a little early to pick up the pitch forks.. maybe at least wait until Pat comments on the matter eh?

3 members found this post helpful.

I'm running Debian 11 in VBox, and just browsing the systemd man pages makes my hair stand on end...and I'm bald!

6 members found this post helpful.

This.
Yeah, I'd rather see a return to static devs. I wonder if that would work? The package is still there and is installed as part of the 'a' series.
Yeah, I've had enough of that too.
Agreed. Good to see that there are still options.

4 members found this post helpful.

You need to try Devuan GNU+Linux then.

I know MX Linux defaults to not using systemd, but you can use it if you want.

1 members found this post helpful.

Has the systemd virus infected the BSDm unix's? or are they still sysV init like slackware?

there is something similar now https://www.itsfoss.net/initware-as-...rk-on-openbsd/ but they dont use that
this is old https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/w...amework.63893/
in Bsd they dont like/want systemd there.
this is new
https://www.reddit.com/r/BSD/comment...tware_fork_of/
https://libreddit.ducksdont.net/r/BS...tware_fork_of/

I don't want to fuel another dreaded systemd discussion, but you should know that systemd is not simply an "init system" (it's far more than that).

6 members found this post helpful.

True, but isn't that exactly the issue?

I'll say right off, I don't really know the first thing about the inner workings of systemd. Nor do I really have a dog in this fight: if Pat chooses to include it in some future version of Slackware, I'll look into it then; likewise, if Pat shuns systemd, so be it.

But from what I do know about systemd, it seems obvious to me that in its very essence, it flies in the face of UNIX philosophy. Paraphrasing: "Write software tools that do only one thing--and do it excellently." cat, grep, wc, leap to mind.

Please don't misconstrue: I have literally no opinion about the merits of systemd writ large. But your statement that it's not just an init system--"it's far more than that"--confirms that its developers/backers don't subscribe to the aforementioned "UNIX philosophy."

From both your statement and various others I've encountered, I gather that systemd, for lack of a better phrase, tries to be "all things to all people." Now, technically speaking, that wording may be putting it too strongly. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in its very design, it was made to do "more than one thing." (Whether it does "excellently" the plethora of things it tries to do is open for debate.)

One of the things that makes Slackware so great is its rightful claim to be "the most Unix-like" distro. With all that in mind, I would be quite shocked if Pat chose to embrace it any time soon...

2 members found this post helpful.

Yes.

I'm not at all sure I understand the worry. Is eudev some special case? I mean just because even in worst case that nobody chooses to maintain it why wouldn't it continue to work just as it does? It seems to me there is lots of low level software, like LILO, that still works after more than a decade on no maintenance. Sure it won't boot UEFI mode (elilo does) but it still works as it always did and the job of eudev, afaik, is substantially simpler. Froim what little I know it looks like that as long as Slackware's init system isn't fundamentally changed, eudev should still work, no?

My only real dismay at systemd is it presents a substantial learning curve with no perceived benefit. I test other distros and systemd works OK but I really don't see any advantage on a SOHO Desktop box and there is some downside, not the least of which is caving in to a digital pandemic. The worst downside I can imagine is that with so many mainstream distros allowing such an invasive and pervasive chunk of PID 1 spreading everywhere, that devs stop developing for anything but systemd to some substantial degree. However I suspect that might actually increase blowback resistance, at least in distros that are mostly for Desktop usage. I know Enterprise enjoys the ability to rollout and maintain en masse that systemd apparently makes some easier. Desktop? What benefit?

7 members found this post helpful.

Building and packaging udev from the systemd sources is relatively trivial. I had done it long ago, and after looking at it and the other options, we switched to eudev since it appeared to be the best option. I've currently got udev-249 built, packaged, and running on a couple of test machines, and I suspect that we'll all discuss and weigh our options after 15.0 is released, and a decision will be made, and we'll go from there.

38 members found this post helpful.

I don't know about anyone else, but this kind level-headed pragmatism and quiet authority based in experience, along with a complete absence of drama, is why I use and trust Slackware so much.
So thank you Robby (and Pat, and the rest of the team) :-)

20 members found this post helpful.

Would be as simple and easy as to adopt BSD.

Having used systemd and learned some of it, the main thing I've taken away from it is that it makes simple things difficult/complicated. Sure, it works well and has many features, but I personally can't stand it. But hey, if there was ever constroversy about --gnu-longoptions, then I'm sure you will be just dandy using what should actually be called SystemD, because that's how everything is expressed there. Not only long options but capitalization as well.

Just wait until SystemD jails the mount command and becomes the imperator of that as well. You will use:
SystemD-Mount --partition-type=Ext4 --more-options=SomeOption /dev/sda1 /mnt

1 members found this post helpful.

You do have the source for the mount application. Most distro's provide their source code. Why couldn't you just compile it yourself and always have it at your disposal instead of having to use it through SystemD, if they do consume mount? That can be applied to any application consumed. E.g. cron

Sure it is not Slackware only problem. There are other options than systemd.

1 members found this post helpful.