
Systemd Invasion into Linux Server Space - lelf
http://www.softpanorama.org/Commercial_linuxes/Startup_and_shutdown/systemd.shtml
======
fao_
The Server Space is arguably the main place SystemD was designed for, and
probably the only place it makes sense to deploy it. There are a subset of
use-cases that it _does_ make sense to run SystemD, and the server-space is
the place where those cases lie.

In my opinion, for the security and stability of most systems, initd is
superior. Lennart Poettering has a long history of ignoring blatant security
problems, and SystemD itself has a long history of containing system-breaking
bugs, and in general being over-engineered for most use-cases.

See:
[https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/](https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/) and
[http://without-
systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_...](http://without-
systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd) and [http://without-
systemd.org/wiki/index.php/List_of_articles_c...](http://without-
systemd.org/wiki/index.php/List_of_articles_critical_of_systemd)

EDIT:

There's really nothing here I can say that hasn't been talked about elsewhere.
What I will say is that, elsewhere on hacker news, people seem to be
preoccupied with "Language Safety", and Rust, and the adjacent languages that
provide that. The reason for this is to reduce bugs and potential exploits.

You know what else causes less bugs? LESS CODE, AND LESS FEATURES. The less
code there is running on a system, the less code there is to exploit, and the
less bugs there are likely to be. PID 1 is a SACRED, HOLY, Process Identifier.
Code that runs with this PID has control over the ENTIRE SYSTEM. An exploit in
PID 1 is LITERALLY game over.

Let us not forget:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/28/black_hat_pwnie_awa...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/28/black_hat_pwnie_awards/)
(Links to bug reports are halfway down the page)

~~~
pulisse
> You know what else causes less bugs? LESS CODE, AND LESS FEATURES. The less
> code there is running on a system, the less code there is to exploit, and
> the less bugs there are likely to be. PID 1 is a SACRED, HOLY, Process
> Identifier. Code that runs with this PID has control over the ENTIRE SYSTEM.
> An exploit in PID 1 is LITERALLY game over.

That's an odd point to make in _defense_ of systemd, since one of the primary
objections to its use on servers is that it has vastly more surface area than
is required for process supervision.

~~~
kohtatsu
That point wasn't in defence of systemd.

------
majewsky
I will always love systemd, if only for the major achievement of bluntly
paving over a ton of distributions' stupid idiosyncrasies. Units look
identical on all distributions. Network configuration looks identical on all
distributions. /etc/os-release looks identical on all distributions. As a
developer, and as an admin dealing with different distros all the time, this
is a godsend.

------
zzzcpan
Systemd doesn't matter much in the server space, since the server space is
moving away from using host's init system for anything. Where it is actually
problematic is linux desktop. I wasted so much time dealing with it on
desktop, it's not even funny.

------
twblalock
This is a slanted, conspiratorial rant full of personal attacks.

~~~
msla
> This is a slanted, conspiratorial rant full of personal attacks.

Par for the course as regards reportage on systemd, in other words.

It's weird: People are so het up on hating systemd it's like they forgot to
give any truly coherent reasons _why_ we should hate systemd. They just assume
everyone does, and launch into the rant on that basis. It reminds me of people
thinking disco is terrible and so much worse than any other kind of dance
music, or that Nickleback is utterly inexcusable as opposed to being a
somewhat mediocre rock band, or the endless stream of hatred for Modern
architecture and Modern art. Once you remove the constant blaring hatred,
there's just nothing there.

~~~
fao_
Have... have you actually read
[https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/](https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/) ?

There are solid reasons for disliking systemd.

~~~
icedchai
I've been using Linux since 1993, FreeBSD since 1995. systemd has a weird,
"non-unixy" feel to it. It does too much. Yeah, the fast bootup times are
nice.

~~~
majewsky
> systemd has a weird, "non-unixy" feel to it.

It just occurred to me that this is just the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate all
over again.

Context:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate)

~~~
yellowapple
Question is: is systemd the Linux or the MINIX in this particular debate?

------
chomp
This article is so biased, I had to flag it, I'm sorry.

I can appreciate a good systemd HCI argument. _Maybe_ a Unix philosophy
argument, but those are pretty debunked these days. I can appreciate an attack
surface/system responsibility argument. But this article delves into obnoxious
tropes, biases, rants against systemd, and doesn't present anything that's
thought provoking.

~~~
zzzcpan
The article is very long, I haven't even read most of it but already saw some
good arguments. You are dismissing it for no reason.

~~~
chomp
Claiming that boot time doesn't matter to servers is a good argument? Quoting
Karl Rove is a good argument? Lennart Poettering is a trojan horse? How can
this sway anyone?

~~~
yellowapple
> Claiming that boot time doesn't matter to servers is a good argument?

I'd say so, yeah. Unless you think boot time _does_ matter on a server, in
which case I'd ask why.

------
xyzzy_plugh
systemd is such a colossal step in the right direction, this is nothing but
FUD.

There's certainly a case to be made about running the project in a more
community-friendly manner, but systemd is mature and pretty much everywhere
now, so it's hard to argue what the benefits might've been.

