Linux

47380 readers

1132 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

-4

Another post for not using systemd (lemmy.world)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Before anything else, I would like to say that I admit systemd has brought great change to GNU/Linux. sysvinit wasn't the best, and custom scripts for every distro is a pain I'd rather not have.

With that said, Poettering now works for Microsoft, systemd has basically taken over all of the common/popular distributions (if this is about the argument of "systemd making it easier for developers", disclaimer: I don't know. I'm not a developer), and this has led to a rampant monopolisation of the init system.

Memes aside, this has very real consequences. If you don't want another CentOS-style "oof, sorry, off to testing" debacle happening with your init system, might want to look at the more "advanced" distributions that let you choose the init system.

I am well aware that systemd works well for the most part, and that gamers and most other people likely don't care - which is fine, at least for now. I do expect to see a massive turnover in sentiment if something ever happens to systemd (not that I'd like for that to happen, but no trusting RedHat anymore), but I suppose we'll get to it when we do.

My sentiments are well enunciated in this recent post on the Devuan forum: https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?id=5826

Cheers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The main argument coming against it is not following the “Unix philosophy” which I’m a proponent for

Gosh, don't use a "GNU's Not Unix" system then!

[–] rah@feddit.uk 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you're confused about what "Not Unix" means in the name "GNU's Not Unix". It's nothing to do with the Unix philosophy. It's to do with overcoming the limitations of proprietary Unices from the 1980's. From the GNU Manifesto:

"GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication."

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you’re confused about what “Not Unix” means in the name “GNU’s Not Unix”.

Nah, I'm not confusing anything, I just decent to the level of people claiming that systemd was not following the Unix philosophy.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 11 months ago

I disagree.

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I don't really have a choice in the matter: most software is written for GNU/Linux systems, which is Unix-like at best. I agree that Linux has had many improvements since then, and I wholeheartedly support and applaud Linux for what it has achieved as a project.

If there was a usable Unix derivative (different from *nix clones) I would seriously consider it, but I don't think there's much development other than AIX and what was Solaris by Sun.

[–] bismuthbob@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've had good luck with the BSDs over the years. Great system documentation.

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Indeed. It is most fantastic to peruse through their documentation, very well written.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

macOS is certified Unix and its technically BSD

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

I don’t really have a choice in the matter: most software is written for GNU/Linux systems

And here I'm sitting, thinking that more software is being written for Windows and macOS, a UNIX® Certified Product. (Don't look up Apple's launchd, your brain would meld trying to reconcile your insane claim that systemd "is not following the Unix philosophy" when launchd certifiably is.)

That said, GNU's Not Unix, so GNU/Linux does not have to follow an archaic philosophy anywhere.