It uses a completely different paradigm of process chaining and management than POSIX and the underlying Unix architecture.
That’s not to say it’s bad, just a different design. It’s actually very similar to what Apple did with OS X.
On the plus side, it’s much easier to understand from a security model perspective, but it breaks some of the underlying assumptions about how scheduling and running processes works on Linux.
So: more elegant in itself, but an ugly wart on the overall systems architecture design.
It uses a completely different paradigm of process chaining and management than POSIX and the underlying Unix architecture.
I think that’s exactly it for most people. The socket, mount, timer unit files; the path/socket activations; the After=, Wants=, Requires= dependency graph, and the overall architecture as a more unified ‘event’ manager are what feels really different than most everything else in the Linux world.
That coupled with the ini-style VerboseConfigurationNamesForThatOneThing and the binary journals made me choose a non-systemd distro for personal use - where I can tinker around and it all feels nice and unix-y. On the other hand I am really thankful to have systemd in the server space and for professional work.
I’m not great at any init things, but systemd has made my home server stuff relatively seamless. I have two NASs that I mount, and my server starts up WAY faster than both of them, and I (stupidly) have one mount within the other. So I set requirements that nasB doesn’t mount until nasA has, then docker doesn’t start until after nasB is mounted. Works way better than going in after 5 minutes and remounting and restarting.
Of course, I did just double my previous storage on A, so I could migrate all of Bs stuff back. But that would require a small amount of effort.
I’ve started doing podman quadlets recently, and the ini config style is ugly as hell compared to yaml (even lol) in docker compose. The benefits outweigh that though imho.
I agree that quadlets are pretty ugly but I’m not sure that’s the ini style’s fault. In general I find yaml incredibly frustrating to understand, but toml/ini style is pretty fluent to me. Maybe just a preference, IDK.
Technically, sysv everything was just a file full of instructions for the shell to parse and initialize. Human readable “technically”. It was simple and light weight. SystemD is a bit heavier and more complex as a system service binary. But that load and complexity is generally offset by added features that are extremely nice to have. Providing much more standardized targets and configuration iirc.
I had to search and dig trying to figure out how to set up services properly for my distro, back in the 90s. And when/how to start/restart them. There wasn’t one way to do it all. SysD made it all much more standard, simple, and clear. It’s biggest sin, is that it’s one more binary attack surface that might be exploited.
Yeah, sysv init is all just scripts under the hood, and it’s a bit fragile/arcane. You have to write a bunch of files by hand, reference them correctly, and place and link them in the right directories. Systemd is a bit better, I have to admit that.
Nobody is packaging a standard init script across all distros, basically. A script is expected to be unique per machine or at least per admin setting up a set of machines. A binary could have a secret exploit installed in it that nobody can see/audit before it’s too late.
At least that’s the theory. Personally I love systemd
Init scripts are just scripts. Technically, they don’t introduce any unique vulnerabilities of their own. Just the flaws in the shell itself or server binaries. A poorly written script absolutely can and will still fuck your day up.
SystemD is a program. Which could introduce its own unique buffer overflows or use after free opportunities. I’ve not heard of any. But its possible. However, its standard set of interfaces and systems make the risks of writing your own bad scripts or just using other people’s random bad scripts like we used to much less an issue.
I haven’t been an opponent but I must admit, when you have headless machine of different arch (so no chroot) you try to make connect to LAN and start sshd, managing those links in those directories feels more like shooting in the dark. In that case simple scripts in a dir were easier
When the drama started, the argument of my anti-systemd friend was that it goes against unix philosophy of one program do one thing only. But eventually even him turned on and become a fan.
I honestly don’t get what people were so up in arms about, besides just not wanting to change what already worked for them.
It uses a completely different paradigm of process chaining and management than POSIX and the underlying Unix architecture.
That’s not to say it’s bad, just a different design. It’s actually very similar to what Apple did with OS X.
On the plus side, it’s much easier to understand from a security model perspective, but it breaks some of the underlying assumptions about how scheduling and running processes works on Linux.
So: more elegant in itself, but an ugly wart on the overall systems architecture design.
I think that’s exactly it for most people. The socket, mount, timer unit files; the path/socket activations; the
After=,Wants=,Requires=dependency graph, and the overall architecture as a more unified ‘event’ manager are what feels really different than most everything else in the Linux world.That coupled with the ini-style VerboseConfigurationNamesForThatOneThing and the binary journals made me choose a non-systemd distro for personal use - where I can tinker around and it all feels nice and unix-y. On the other hand I am really thankful to have systemd in the server space and for professional work.
I’m not great at any init things, but systemd has made my home server stuff relatively seamless. I have two NASs that I mount, and my server starts up WAY faster than both of them, and I (stupidly) have one mount within the other. So I set requirements that nasB doesn’t mount until nasA has, then docker doesn’t start until after nasB is mounted. Works way better than going in after 5 minutes and remounting and restarting.
Of course, I did just double my previous storage on A, so I could migrate all of Bs stuff back. But that would require a small amount of effort.
I’ve started doing podman quadlets recently, and the ini config style is ugly as hell compared to yaml (even lol) in docker compose. The benefits outweigh that though imho.
I agree that quadlets are pretty ugly but I’m not sure that’s the ini style’s fault. In general I find yaml incredibly frustrating to understand, but toml/ini style is pretty fluent to me. Maybe just a preference, IDK.
Technically, sysv everything was just a file full of instructions for the shell to parse and initialize. Human readable “technically”. It was simple and light weight. SystemD is a bit heavier and more complex as a system service binary. But that load and complexity is generally offset by added features that are extremely nice to have. Providing much more standardized targets and configuration iirc.
I had to search and dig trying to figure out how to set up services properly for my distro, back in the 90s. And when/how to start/restart them. There wasn’t one way to do it all. SysD made it all much more standard, simple, and clear. It’s biggest sin, is that it’s one more binary attack surface that might be exploited.
Yeah, sysv init is all just scripts under the hood, and it’s a bit fragile/arcane. You have to write a bunch of files by hand, reference them correctly, and place and link them in the right directories. Systemd is a bit better, I have to admit that.
Why are binaries uniquely attackable in a way that init scripts aren’t?
Nobody is packaging a standard init script across all distros, basically. A script is expected to be unique per machine or at least per admin setting up a set of machines. A binary could have a secret exploit installed in it that nobody can see/audit before it’s too late.
At least that’s the theory. Personally I love systemd
Init scripts are just scripts. Technically, they don’t introduce any unique vulnerabilities of their own. Just the flaws in the shell itself or server binaries. A poorly written script absolutely can and will still fuck your day up.
SystemD is a program. Which could introduce its own unique buffer overflows or use after free opportunities. I’ve not heard of any. But its possible. However, its standard set of interfaces and systems make the risks of writing your own bad scripts or just using other people’s random bad scripts like we used to much less an issue.
I haven’t been an opponent but I must admit, when you have headless machine of different arch (so no chroot) you try to make connect to LAN and start sshd, managing those links in those directories feels more like shooting in the dark. In that case simple scripts in a dir were easier
When the drama started, the argument of my anti-systemd friend was that it goes against unix philosophy of one program do one thing only. But eventually even him turned on and become a fan.