I know I’m not the only one that said this but I really can’t stand how systemd is becoming “the norm” init system for every major distro, this is bad.
it is especially bad when certain apps are built specifically for systemd, locking users behind a specific init system and compatibility issues spark because you don’t use a mainstream one , this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os, picking and choosing what goes on and off while still being usable.
I switched to artix Linux with openRC a while ago the moment systemd added code for potential age verification, they called it malicious compliance but I really didn’t like the smell of that, now I’m fighting tooth and nail with some applications because they’re systemd dependent, resulting in me creating custom scripts to mitigate their issues.
You’re right that the GNU toolchain is massive, but the distinction lies in "modularity versus integration". GNU tools are a collection of separate programs that happen to work together, you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system. systemd, however, is a tightly coupled suite where the init, logging, networking, and DNS are interdependent.
The idea of Linux isn’t just about running big software, it’s about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
When a single project dictates the entire stack and makes it nearly impossible to replace just one component without rewriting half the OS, that crosses the line from toolchain to platform lock-in, which is a fundamentally different threat to user freedom than a collection of large but separable GNU utilities.
This is just false. The idea of Linux is having a copyleft operating system, free as in beer and as in freedom. Full stop.
Is that so?
rm -f /bin/bashand reboot. I’ll wait… Go ahead. You’ll be amazed at how many thing rely on bash. Or indeed sh which is why bash runs in bourne compatible mode when executed as /bin/sh.This has never been true. The Linux kernel team themselves reject this silliness with a monolithic kernel that required a very specific toolchain to even build and run. Linux has always had tight integration.
We’ve had many competing implementations of some things (desktop environments come to mind) but that is not the same as “build a system out of Lego components” as a design goal. It’s what you get when you have no direction. It would be a very stupid design goal.
That is less of a hard-dependency on bash than bash being the default bourne shell for most systems, lots of programs depend on
/bin/sh, which can be configured to be any bourne-compatible shell.Linux being monolithic doesn’t warrant other parts of the system to be also be. Linux also has very a relatively stable ABI which allows for decoupling and you already see some projects like Asterinas leverage it to build an alternative kernel that is still compatible with Linux userspace stuff.
Having a direction is not mutually exclusive to having a decoupled system. One of the core aspects for engineering systems is being as decoupled as possible. If you think the only ‘decoupling’ Linux has is desktop environments and higher-level stuff, I cannot truly believe you have tried to tweak your system very much, and that’s perfectly fine, just don’t assume that everything has to be tightly-coupled just because you don’t see a point yourself.
I say this having already used and daily-driven systemd alternatives for years, namely Artix with runit and dinit, and they are perfectly capable and faster, boot times were way faster. Sometimes I’ve had to write manually some service files, but it was fine. Choice is good, it’s frustrating seeing people actively speak against it when it is possible to have it without sacrificing usability.
System d is made to work with its own modules but it’s still modular and someone can make a replacement if they want. A lot of modules are abstractions ontop of the existing solution. If you were to update the existing solution it would be a drop in.