I have seen so many times that systemd is insecure, bloated, etc. So i wonder ¿does it worth to switch to another init system?
just another one of the holy wars within Linux – for the average user, it’s not going to make any difference – most of the mainstream distros switched over a LONG time ago so if you want to avoid systemd, you have to do a little hunting (ex. Devuan, Void, Gentoo, etc.)
It used to be that everything in Linux was a file, ideally a text file, so if you could find the right file you could access or change what you wanted. Systemd is a big program that manages a bunch of stuff and creates unique commands within its programs for doing so, which moves away from that principle and turns system management into what feels a bit more microsofty (like the registry editor program vs editing config files, etc) and a lot of people don’t like that. But to its credit, it does solve a few problems with cobbling together a modern system that doesn’t suck.
It used to be that everything in Linux was a file, ideally a text file
Yes? The entire Systemd configuration is done with files. With a very well defined structure called units that you can use to configure, boot, service startup, networking, containers, mount stuff, open sockets… that’s exactly the point Systemd provides a cohesive configuration file format for a system.
Yes and no. Let me start by saying I use systemd and have never seen any of this as a problem big enough for me to switch.
The Unix philosophy is that a program should do one thing and do it well, the old init.d system did exactly that, but systemd does more than just start programs, for example there’s the systemd-logind service which is used to authenticate users. Why is this a problem? Because some people don’t want to use systemd, therefore they don’t have logind, so if something were to depend on that, like GNOME’s GDM did for a while, it would be impossible to use it without systemd. So in a way people complain about programs becoming dependant on systemd, and systemd grabbing more and more responsibilities to the point where it would become an integral part of Linux, it’s not that systemd is a problem now, is that it has the potential to become so ingrained to everything that it becomes impossible to remove. But in the meantime systemd does provide some advantages, including parallelism which makes the computer boot faster.
Should you switch? Not really, this is more a philosophical debate on what Linux is and should be, I agree with all of the philosophical points and don’t think programs should depend on systemd, but I don’t think that’s directly systemd’s fault.
The biggest benefit would be to learn more about how unix systems work from the ground up. I’d say if you’ve had no problems ever with systemd then just stick to it. My linux usage predates systemd (by a lot) and I just want options kept open so I’m never forced onto it against my will.
I mean, is systemd giving YOU problems? If not, don’t switch just because other people complain about it
Do it for the lulz
Looks like there are some security, privacy and stability advantages. But for most people systemd should be fine.
See here for further info:
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/guides/linux-hardening.html#choosing-the-right-distro
https://forums.whonix.org/t/fixing-the-desktop-linux-security-model/9172/2
https://www.unixsheikh.com/articles/systemd-isnt-safe-to-run-anywhere.html
https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-real-motivation-behind-systemd.html
https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/
https://without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Arguments_against_systemd/
https://nosystemd.org/
Edit: also getting dnscrypt to work with systemd is pretty tough and unreliable in my experience (debian and opensuse). See here https://github.com/DNSCrypt/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-linux
This could be a problem if you are planning to use encrypted dns.
Yeap, it is always the same set of poorly researched links that get pasted in threads like this.
Unix philosophy, evil corporate interests, insecure, bloated, entangled mess… it is these individuals thatbhave seen the light, notnthe silent majority that does all the work in distributions and when developing software that kind of opted withbtheir feet.
not sure about the other ones, but “madaidan” (Kicksecure/Linux Hardening Guide) and Daniel Micay (Copperhead/GrapheneOS) are well known security researchers. See Daniel Micays take on Systemd:
https://old.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/bddq5u/os_security_ios_vs_grapheneos_vs_stock_android/ekzo6c0/
https://forums.whonix.org/t/fixing-the-desktop-linux-security-model/9172/2
Suckless.org’s take on systemd is pretty well researched. All sources inside.
Some other critics are Ted Tso, Torvalds, Volkerding (Slackware), … See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-linuxs-systemd/
First off, there are lots of problems with systemd (mostly down in the details) and controversial defaults at times, bugs, bloat, and hickups and whatnot. Like basically in all projects all the time. So of course there is valid critique on systemd, lots of it.
But I have a problem taking any argument seriously that is based on “I am smarter than everybody else”. I do not like detail Y or developer Z, so the project X sucks and everybody that disagrees is either a paid shill, forced into it or just stupid. There is no point in even talking with people like that.
