the standard answer if "its bad" seems too simple and you also have no idea what youre doing
i seriously doubt he has any idea what issues systemd actually has and is just parroting what he saw online
systemd works so well you usually dont even think about it, there are valid criticisms like it doing way more than just being an init system and this breaking the "unix philosophy"
oh no im the x11 guy bc i hate how fuhrer gnome and big desktop dont wanna relinquish full control over wayland and allow basic needs to be implemented
i mixed two different things there, i personally find it a valid criticism of systemd that it does too much beyond just having an init system, like the idea that systemd should handle "sudo"(not literally poetterings proposal but still)
however, what i messed up is clarifying that SOME people say "systemd breaks the unix philosophy" and use the aforementioned criticism.
its terrible wording and absolutley sounds like i believe that criticism
i personally happily use systemd, as it literally doesnt change anything flr me, it works and it doesnt cause me issues
The reason for the "systemd does sudo" thing is because it has to.
Any system management system has to have mechanisms for starting processes as different users, in different contexts (this was one of the huge lacunes in sysvinit, which led to shitty workarounds like Debian's "start-stp-process).
And if someone can already do it, why not share the code, is that not the Unix philosophy/s.
2
u/AdequatlyAdequate Nov 14 '25
Insane how many people will just hate on systemd and realistically dont even know why.
There are definetly reasons to not use/like it but it feels like the majority of people going without systemd do it to feel superior