Hacker News Reader

Comment by silver_silver | Hacker News Reader

Not as radical a change as, e.g. integrating systemd though

The aim of systemd seems to be to use the Linux kernel as the base for a non-unix OS as shown (hence the "now with 42% linux philosophy tagline of the latest recent release https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/version_256_systemd/).

Its not a bad idea if you agree with the aim - Linux already has lots of hardware support and an ecosystem to leverage.

In the long run BSDs and non-systemd Linux will be more similar to each other than they are to Linux with systemd in a lot of ways.

I have started using Alpine for servers - its small and fast. Not so sure about switching on desktops.

I don't believe for a moment that was the initial aim of systemd. They just tried to improve on a pile of hacks and by pulling on that string it sort of ends up touching (or from your perspective infecting) everything.

It vaguely reminds me of people arguing about "what color is your function". You open that portal and end up in a new universe. All or nothing.

The unix wars are long over I'm not sure what you can point to that ever was a True Unix. Nostalgia not withstanding. What well defined standard Right Way you're actually clinging to is not clear.

Whether it will end up for the best or not I don't know but the entire saga seems to be the pitfalls of endless tinkering on display rather than some unifying vision. I wish we lived in a world where systemd type efforts had clear end goals and well thought out architecture in mind when they start but open source doesn't like working this way.

It just ends up as "my favorite way of doing things is better" based on vibes. In both directions. That's the problem with "philosophies".

It may not been the initial intention, but the aim of adding a layer to the OS does lead to what is effectively a new OS. Its a bit like MacOS vs BSD, or maybe Chimera Linux (Linux kernel with BSD userland) or Debian/kFreeBSD.

The best argument I have seen for systemd is that it adds a layer that will be used and standardised across multiple distros (most effectively in a video of a talk by a FreeBSD developer). The best argument against is that it is massive and does too much.

> systemd.. adds a layer that will be used and standardised across multiple distros

Like Google Play Services on Android.

Given android doesn't use systemd, and containers don't expose it even if the host machine uses it, systemd isn't actually that entrenched or irreversible. Containerized applications don't know or care, and neither do all the people toting around android as phones, tablets, or laptops. Unix may only be tied together as a concept at this point by a posixish libc api, and that is probably just fine.

ChromeOS doesn't use systemd, either. (It uses upstart, which I am guessing they have to maintain without any significant outside help.)

I'm pretty sure ChromeOS is getting upstart from their Gentoo base, so what little maintenance it needs should be shared. And I do mean little maintenance; without systemd's infinite scope creep, an init system could reach "done" and coast indefinitely.

> I have started using Alpine for servers - its small and fast. Not so sure about switching on desktops.

It's fine. I've run it on laptops (IIRC, it does have the small downside of not sleeping on lid close by default) and my desktop (my gaming machine for a while; flatpak Steam runs nicely on Alpine) and it's fine.

> Not so sure about switching on desktops.

I've been using it for years. It's the successor to slack for me. Not a fan of rolling release and prefer minimalism to Devuan's approach. Void looks interesting but I had issues, whereas I had none with Alpine. I recommend it.

> I have started using Alpine for servers - its small and fast.

I'm curious about "fast" here, as for "small" I don't care much - you mean benchmarks doing better on Alpine or fast in which terms?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com