Ask HN: Why don't Linux distros provide systemd opt-out? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why don't Linux distros provide systemd opt-out?

It would have been great if the Major Linux distros, Red Hat in particular, would have provided users with an option to either user Sys-V init or systemd. The argument being that Sys-V init is more suitable for Server/Enterprise environments and systemd for Desktop environments (IMHO).

View on HN

Maintaining 2 or 3 different init systems is non-trivial and companies do not want to support 3 different init systems for the next 10 years. It costs time and money, so they would rather have people work on things that actually matter instead.

I completely agree, however I think it would have been worth the effort, even if it where only to appear in Fedora. Definitely non-trivial, but could have been done when first integrating systemd.

Gentoo and Calculate Linux (which is based on Gentoo). But I think the package manager in Gentoo is awful.

There's also Alpine Linux. And in Debian you can switch to sysvinit or upstart.

If you're really anti-systemd maybe consider FreeBSD, PC-BSD, or OpenBSD.

Awesome that Debian gives you an option. This may be my excuse to finally switch from RHEL/CentOS.

For how-to: http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=37871

Slackware is another option as they are not going to rely on sytemd for their next release. Slackware's take on package management is also quite different from what is common today though.

> And in Debian you can switch to sysvinit or upstart.

I expect this to go the way of the dodo by the release of the next major version.

Only reason it works right now is that Canonical had interest in maintaining a shim between the systemd APIs and upstart. As both Debian and Ubuntu now defaults to systemd, i expect said shim to rot on the vine.

Well RH seems very keen on pushing systemd as a basis for containers etc, so you will not get much luck there.

The major thing though is that systemd is not just a init.

At present is it init, login, logging, xinetd, cron, firewall, networking, and the list keeps growing virtually daily.

Meaning that providing an option means providing effectively two distros.

There's a theory that systemd is a way to make certain flavors of Linux more proprietary/locked-in by exercising absolute control over vital system services though non-standards bodies.

Each of these projects accept patches from the community (read: me and you). If there is no money attached to it and the community doesn't have time to do it, it ain't getting done.

You spend more time caring and hating on systemd than it takes to learn it and overcome your issues.

Most everyone who hates on systemd has this problem; you could blame systemd. Or you could realize you have a problem

I think it's a legitimate question. Systemd seems more targeted towards desktop environments where things like D-BUS are needed. I'm thinking of bastion server configurations using a distributions like CentOS where less is more. It may be worthwhile to use Sys-V which has less moving parts, fewer configuration options and thus fewer vulnerability points. Not to say that systemd cannot be hardened as well, but having a choice would have been better.

Or you could adopt any number of other inits that have much the same benefits as systemd-as-init, but without all the baggage.

Frankly the reason systemd even gets attention is because the likes of Gnome needs a part of it, logind, to handle logins/sessions, and that it basically absorbed udev (after udev had existed as a independent project for a decade).

Maybe some people hate systemd because they are trying to overcome its issues and in the process they have found it was utterly broken. Just saying...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com