As someone who designs systems as part of his job, “it violates Linux philosophy” is a perfectly valid reason to hate something as critical and low level as an init system.
I think “hate” is a strong word, mind, but following consistent design patterns and constraining scope matters. The problem is that it’s one of those things that doesn’t tend to matter until shit hits the fan.
The scope creep exponentially raises the efforts needed to properly test, troubleshoot, secure, and just generally work with the project code. The unique design creates rough edges for integrations with other pre-existing systems and tools, while also raising the effort needed for troubleshooting when something goes wrong.
There’s also the whole “Chesterton’s Fence” aspect to a lot of it, where the project runner’s overall attitude has been dismissive of existing conventions and separation of functionality.
There’s a lot of perfectly valid reasons to dislike it. That said, I think full on hate is extreme for an aspect of the overall Linux “system” and “user experience” that most users never interact with. Like having an opinion on the order your BIOS handles things in.
That only has impact on the security risk surface exposed for your own install and for troubleshooting on your own machine. The maintainers and other coders on the project still have far more space, complexity, and features to cover.
It’s not a death knell by any means, but still a valid cause for concern.
Sure, and that’s just as valid points against them as well. For my part at least, none of this is meant as some sort of death knell, or direct damning evidence that some software is some sort of terrible piece of garbage.
I just refuse to believe that someone would literally be entirely incapable of comprehending any of the reasons people dislike systems to only be capable of engaging with the criticisms in bad faith.
As someone who designs systems as part of his job, “it violates Linux philosophy” is a perfectly valid reason to hate something as critical and low level as an init system.
I think “hate” is a strong word, mind, but following consistent design patterns and constraining scope matters. The problem is that it’s one of those things that doesn’t tend to matter until shit hits the fan.
The scope creep exponentially raises the efforts needed to properly test, troubleshoot, secure, and just generally work with the project code. The unique design creates rough edges for integrations with other pre-existing systems and tools, while also raising the effort needed for troubleshooting when something goes wrong.
There’s also the whole “Chesterton’s Fence” aspect to a lot of it, where the project runner’s overall attitude has been dismissive of existing conventions and separation of functionality.
There’s a lot of perfectly valid reasons to dislike it. That said, I think full on hate is extreme for an aspect of the overall Linux “system” and “user experience” that most users never interact with. Like having an opinion on the order your BIOS handles things in.
You are allowed to build minimal systemd, which didn’t change that much in many years, no scope creep, consistent, simple.
That only has impact on the security risk surface exposed for your own install and for troubleshooting on your own machine. The maintainers and other coders on the project still have far more space, complexity, and features to cover.
It’s not a death knell by any means, but still a valid cause for concern.
deleted by creator
Which could apply to GNOME or KDE given they do more than just desktop environments.
Sure, and that’s just as valid points against them as well. For my part at least, none of this is meant as some sort of death knell, or direct damning evidence that some software is some sort of terrible piece of garbage.
I just refuse to believe that someone would literally be entirely incapable of comprehending any of the reasons people dislike systems to only be capable of engaging with the criticisms in bad faith.