mccDue to the extremely large number of basic functions "systemd" has usurped from other parts of the OS, a natural and interesting project would be to see if systemd can now exist independently apart from Linux, or rather, to ascertain what is the most minimal alternate kernel that could serve as a life support system for successfully running systemd. Since calling this "System System" would be absurd, the most logical name for such a project would be "d OS", or "DOS". In this Mastodon post I will
Sylvhem@mcc I can’t wait for kerneld to replace Linux! *sarcasm*
derptron
gkrnours@mcc GNU/systemd
tetris
SetOfAllSets@SetOfAllSets @gkrnours I think that's musl
David Cantrell 🏏@DrHyde @SetOfAllSets @gkrnours You know no one has at any point yet given me a reason to dislike systemd except "it is not old thing" and I didn't actually like old thing. I guess I kind of liked Upstart but certainly not the weird script mess that predated it. Whatever that was called. Boot.d or something
@mcc @DrHyde @gkrnours I dislike systemd because it eats everything and turns it into a part of itself, it's like the polar opposite of KISS.
Edit: and I do like how it starts services in parallel, I'm doing something similar with my package manager for example, it's a good idea, it just comes with the baggage of systemd being systemd.
@SetOfAllSets @mcc @gkrnours starting things in parallel is a neat trick, but not terribly useful unless you're spawning VMs all the time - and if you are flinging VMs around like confetti you probably won't be running much on each machine so surely the benefit mostly goes away.
bassplayer@bassplayer @mcc @DrHyde @gkrnours the good idea isn't the baggage for me, it's the over expansion into areas unrelated to the init system
@SetOfAllSets @mcc @DrHyde @gkrnours I don't think I said that. I only meant that things start out very lean and specific and end up up having so much added to them and the new thing is developed which is specific and efficient and the process seems to start all over. Also would you not call the new OS linuxctl since every command has ctl appended to it. :D
@bassplayer @mcc @DrHyde @gkrnours ah ok, I misunderstood, also the OS would be unix-like (except when it's not)
schrotthaufen@SetOfAllSets @mcc @DrHyde @gkrnours The featureitis sucks, but the bare init system is the best init system the Linux world ever had. No more shell scripts written by package maintainers; service files from upstream ftw! Dependencies for services! The temporary users are great too. No more user/group clutter for system users! Fsck networkd and resolvd though. And I wish they’d separate udev from systemd.
@SetOfAllSets @mcc @DrHyde @gkrnours In conclusion, I think people hate systemd because it:
- only works with Linux
- accumulated too many features
- was written by Lennart, and somehow people like to hate that dude
- only works with Linux
- accumulated too many features
- was written by Lennart, and somehow people like to hate that dude
@schrotthaufen @SetOfAllSets @DrHyde only works with linux and accumulated too many features are two side of the same coin. If you replace two system that used to communicate together with one system, you can drop the communication interface. So your not posix anymore as you don't have the posix interface. And app that support only your new system aren't posix compatible, only linux compatible.
And that coin was minted by the systemd author
And that coin was minted by the systemd author
waffles 
@mcc @DrHyde @SetOfAllSets @gkrnours personally I've had systemd brick computers because grub failed to update and systemd mounts EFIVARS as r/w
Systemdboot should fix the issue
Some distros hold back problematic grub updates so this doesn't happen but distros like arch will push them through with mininal testing
Systemdboot should fix the issue
Some distros hold back problematic grub updates so this doesn't happen but distros like arch will push them through with mininal testing
J3RN 
@mcc I liked Upstart too. RIP, Upstart.
aeva@mcc @DrHyde @SetOfAllSets @gkrnours I think it's commonly reviled by a Kind Of Nerd for arguably being partly to blame/praise for the ongoing trend of reducing variance between the most popular linux distros.
I have an alternative theory that this is actually many long time power users experiencing a decline in their own patience. The trend of uniformity they claim to observe could just be their cognitive dissonance over their preferences drifting to towards more turnkey distros.
@mcc @DrHyde @SetOfAllSets @gkrnours even the most stalwart linux evangelist's patience isn't immune to being needled by the same irritating problems again and again for years, but there's all this investment in the identity so the only viable compromise is installing fedora or ubuntu or gnome 3 or whatever and then complaining loudly about how their freedoms have been silenced by systemd or whatever
@aeva A thing I could identify as a potentially legitimate problem is that since components of systemd probably communicate "directly" rather than over defined, stable interfaces, once a job has entered systemd it may be very difficult to make it leave. For example imagine systemd is very good at job A and bad at job B. A new, improved B-doer project could be very difficult to introduce, where pre-systemd it would have been feasible, because of tight coupling between systemd and its D module.
@aeva Hypothetically. I guess. The only specific example I seem to get of systemd components that could be performed better elsewhere is init.d, which I absolutely do not want to use. Get that out of my life.
@aeva I will also note, for the record, that I have had two different linux systems nuke themselves because a part of systemd decided to destroy itself, *but* it is not entirely clear to me if this should be blamed on systemd per se or if it should be blamed on Ubuntu.
Tom Forsyth
Clifton RoystonI have found that's frequently due to how the boot volume is partitioned.
MS has been trying to enforce UEFI-boot-only for a long time so they can also force use of the hardware TPM as an anti-competitive^W^W security measure. UEFI in turn requires GPT, not MBR.
With Windows 11 they've made it mandatory. If it's not GPT, it will describe it as ineligible for Windows 11 without any explanation.
I'm not saying this is the cause of your issue, but it's possible and not well documented.
I discovered this by accident, because I have been keeping this system going for a long time across many migrations to new hardware, and never did the reformatting and copying needed to convert it to GPT.
Since then I have been using it to keep Windows from shoving Windows 11 on me until I decide I'm ready to switch. I'm always deeply suspicious of new major Windows releases.
Simen Storsveen@aeva I was looking into that myself the other day, and apparently it may be possible to "enable TPM in BIOS" to make it work. There is also some more info here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/ways-to-install-windows-11-e0edbbfb-cfc5-4011-868b-2ce77ac7c70e
@mcc I've heard gnome 3 has or had systemd as a required dependency for a while.
My meaning is more there are still distros where you can still pick your init system and preferred permutation of system administration utilities, but doing so is fundamentally at odds with having a very predictable stable system, because the job of distro maintainers is made much much harder with that kind of combinatorial explosion.
@mcc so my theory is users who used to be perfectly happy connecting to their wireless network via bash commands and running niche window managers and customizing every single gui toolkit to look like an acid trip run distros that let them do that. until they get fed up with all the recurring self inflicted little problems and switch to more predictable distros that shocked pikachu make it much harder for them to do that
wb x64@aeva @mcc I mostly just think that the UI change (command names and argument naming/ordering) wasn't handled very well. Sure /etc/init.d/foo start wasn't intuitive, but I mess up some or all of the following without googling (I'm writing this without googling:)
service mysqld restart
systemctl mysqld enable
sysctl anything
journalctl anything -xfce
"Everything is literally just a file" isn't stellar, but it exposed its intentions and you could use text editors to fix things
Kevin Granade has moved@kevingranade I used to be really off the deep end about Freedom Software
Tavy, Counterfeit Consciousness@QuaternionCats @aeva That last thing makes it sound like systemd is providing some sort of legitimately useful utility which third party software has need for
@aeva @mcc @DrHyde @SetOfAllSets I did switch from archlinux + awesomewm at university to ubuntu + xfce these days.
On the other hand, my dayjob is mainly python and kunernetes. To my knowledge, I can't run kubernetes on openbsd so I can't really leave linux. Python provide docker image based on debian and alpine. But no precompiled package for alpine.
Maybe these are sign of lack of patience, in a "work for me, good enough" kind of way
0xC0DEC0DE07EAIt’s an explicit step away from the “everything is a file” ethos. That’s one argument about it. @aeva @mcc @DrHyde @SetOfAllSets @gkrnours
Josh Simmons@mcc @DrHyde @SetOfAllSets @gkrnours There's certainly a Type of user who is very angry about systemd...
@mcc @DrHyde @SetOfAllSets @gkrnours init.d was absolutely awful.
The thing it allowed that people were mad about losing is you could just stick a pile of scripts in there as a poweruser or admin and have bizarre arbitrary things happen.
Systemd was designed to do the one job of managing services and it made doing arbitrary things on start up slightly more inconvenient.
@kevingranade @mcc @DrHyde @gkrnours with the way most distros work now, only maintainers and power users touch init scripts/services. Allowing flexibility is nice, and adding dependency management to allow for parallel starting could be done with a simple config file alongside the script. Either way, that is not my complaint since I understand that what I just described can be done with systemd, my complaint is how it eats everything (eg: udevd).
viq
Ronflaix@mcc *mumbles something something about One Piece's Will of D*
gizmomathboy, FC@mcc my coworkers and I joked about systemd doing exactly this
I think we're also half serious it will
Zeta SyanthisDying of laughter over here. XD
Joe ❌👑@mcc This might not be so easy. Systemd assumes that it has a lot of functionality available from the kernel (related to the various kinds of containers, process groups and namespaces) that aren't present in the various BSDs, so when Gnome became increasingly dependent on systemd this presented portability problems. Your proposed project (I know, not intended seriously) probably couldn't drop that much from Linux.
@not2b I simply want my computer to have less computer in it
Likely Suspects@mcc As long as it can pick the squares containing a bus you'll be good.
Ian Douglas Scott@not2b @mcc There are some Linux-specific system calls that systemd is unlikely to have much use for. And you wouldn't need all of the driver and architecture code in the kernel depending on what exactly your goal is. And that's a big part of the kernel. Etc.
But yeah. I think the systemd project generally has the philosophy of taking advantage of what Linux offers and not caring about POSIX/BSD. Lennart Poettering at least has explicitly argued developers should ignore BSD/POSIX.
Ben Rosengart
Danielle Foré@mcc I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd system made useful by the systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by @pid_eins
Florian Haas@danirabbit My thoughts exactly but you beat me to it, kudos! @mcc
neko