This is just a thread about runit, what good is bringing tribal console-war like arguments about systemd to it?
You claimed that anything but systemd would "fail all the time", I pointed out that in many years of using other options I've never had them do that.
The most egregious systemd bug I've hit was it just freezing on shutdown, with zero error message or even warnings; there's nothing a user should be able to do to produce that outcome that's a "skill issue" and not a bug. In any event, you're just making up claims without evidence.
As a long-time runit user, systemd does far better with sequencing things. With runit you have to have a check executable, and then run 'sv check servicename' in the start script of the service which depends on another.
"It's deeply entrenched in every major distro that it's impossible to administer a linux system without it"
That's a non-sequitur, aka an after-the-fact claim made. Not every distribution transitioned into forcing systemd onto everyone - granted, the majority did, but you can find distributions that did not surrender user's rights here, be it devuan, slackware, void, gentoo (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_without_systemd). But admittedly it takes more effort than going into systemd. Note that many of the statements made there such as "hardening options", is just buzzword promo for systemd. It just means nothing. What should "hardening" even mean? Also, it is perfectly fine to use linux on a non-systemd system. People used to do this for decades before systemd infected the linux world. It's a smaller crowd though compared to systemd-using systems and users indeed nowadays.
I really don't like the phrasing of this. Nobody's rights are being "infringed" by distros going with systemd. Especially because, as other comments have noted, systemd is (not) just an init system, and more often than not I have found that people who hate on it or try to compare it to any pure init system are usually both arguing in bad faith and fundamentally misunderstanding what systemd actually is.
Most recent breakage: https://lwn.net/Articles/1041316/
I hoped this kind of behavior would stop as soon as Lennart was busy with different things @microsoft (this happened to Pulseaudio and that was a good thing), but Luca continued where Lennart left, and this stuff goes on.
> ..., and if you complain about these bugs to the systemd project, they will consider you a bump in systemd's way of greatness that must be purged
The sentence is not about systemd having bugs, its about how the devs handle bug reports.
In the /run/lock situation that i linked, Boccassi unilaterally declared WONTFIX towards the users whose applications he broke. If i did this at work, I'd get fired.
... Yeah, except that system's excessive and ever expanding scope is one of its bigger problems. Are you sure they misunderstood anything?
Systemd's "scope creep" is a stereotypical haters argument and is nonsensical. The 'Unix Philosophy' was a hardware requirement more than a philosophical one because back then they literally couldn't fit more than one program into memory at a time. And, regardless of the hardware or philosophical debate, systemd does actually meat this requirement: systemd itself is just the init part and service manager. systemd-logind is a completely separate service which you can opt not to build and systemd will work just fine. systemd-resolved, systemd-timesyncd, etc., are likewise completely indepeendent programs which just so happen to share the same codebase and are under the same umbrella. Are you next going to claim that coreutils has scope creep because all of the tools share the same codebase? Or busybox?
The real argument about systemd is whether you want an init system, or what is effectively an additional layer in the OS. It provides more standardisation, vs more diversity. The strongest argument for systemd is that it is not just an init system, which is also the strongest argument against systemd.