Hey guys, I have been using a Linux for a while and I always thought as long as some software is Open Source, its good enough.

What are other considerations that make for good FOSS software? In which of these does systemd fail? Is that why it’s criticized or is there some other reason?

  • Rioting Pacifist@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 hours ago
    1. It came from a corporation so was designed by 1 guy not a committee and some people will never forgive it for that.
    2. The systemd suite is far more than an init system and keeps getting bigger, I genuinely think it’s just a matter of time until it has a mail retrieval service built into it.
    3. It offers clear benefits so even distros resisitent to depending on a tool when there are alternatives have adopted it
    4. It doesn’t pander to slacktivist on stuff like including an optional DoB field

    That’s about it, I find it kind of annoying sometimes as it messes with stuff I knew how to do (harden per-user-tmp partitions), but overall the benefits to distro maintenance must be worth it so I don’t worry about it too much.

    Much like the DoB stuff I find the pushback to it far more annoying than the actual inconvenience of sometimes not being able to configure a tweak how I’d like.

    • Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      9 hours ago

      The reason this person is getting downvoted with no answer to their good points is an indicator as to why the subject is sensible.

      Someone (admittably an asshole) found how to solve a problem, wrote a suite that does a very good job where the alternatives were absolute crap, and all major distros started using it.

      Everybody is free to write another alternative, but everybody that is capable knows that systemd is probably better than whatever they could make, so that is what almost everybody is using.

      • Arcanoloth@lemmy.ml
        0·
        8 hours ago

        Have you considered that we don’t think any of those are “good points” worthy of comment?