Hacker News Reader

Comment by e7620 | Hacker News Reader

systemd is less stable than upstart (and sysvinit, obviusly), "it lacks maturity" says the author. You've had several problems with upstart, but count yourself lucky, certain problems with systemd will take down the whole system, and make it unbootable too!

systemd is not reliable, unlike eg daemontools, the developers are busy adding new features and don't care at all about old bugs. They say if you're not using one of the latest kernels, tough luck. So you're continuously debugging systemd "modern innovations" instead of focusing on your product.

If you're using Ubuntu, let's hope that by the time it gets adopted, systemd has evolved into a functional, dependable component. I wouldn't bet my product on that, though..

View on HN

>the developers are busy adding new features and don't care at all about old bugs.

What old bugs are you talking about? the only old bugs I can find are fixed or non-systemd bugs that weren't cleaned up

>They say if you're not using one of the latest kernels, tough luck.

Where recent means at least 3.7, or 3.8 if you want Smack support.

>certain problems with systemd will take down the whole system, and make it unbootable too!

>you're continuously debugging systemd "modern innovations" instead of focusing on your product.

[citation needed]

I've been using systemd and systemd user sessions since Arch switched over and the only issues I've come across have been my own fault.

I've been also using systemd since Arch switched over, I've discovered bugs and vulnerabilities. But the thing is, if you're happy with systemd and works well for you, great! I've seen this very prevalent attitude in systemd users, the less they know, more fervently defend systemd, even if they think it sucks, they tell you it's the best thing ever because they're using it, and they always have to use the best.

Arch is bleeding edge, if you've never seen a bug, you haven't been paying attention. So, again, you've never suffered a problem with systemd. Now do a web search, and in less time it takes to write "[citation needed]", you'll see that this is real. Sorry, but systemd has bugs, just like every other program, but by being so intermingled with the kernel, the consequences are much worse.

>systemd has bugs, just like every other program, but by being so intermingled with the kernel, the consequences are much worse.

WHAT? I thought systemd was flawless by virtue of being the creation of god-emperor Poettering. /s

>asserts that there are critical bugs that make the system unbootable

>asserts that changes to systemd break everything

>refuses to provide source

Why should I look for data to support your assertions? If there is any data supporting your assertions you should know where to find it already.

If you know of some old neglected bugs like you keep saying then point some out. I would love to see an actual source on something other than the constant made up retorts of "PID 1 now has an HTTP server" or "Now kernel panics display a QR code".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com