65
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
65 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
65301 readers
612 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
This shit again?
No. That's not the "idea of Linux". That's your idea of Linux. I don't see people bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
I used to. Then I tried a GNU-less Unix for a bit, and I realised that GNU is really good, and there is a reason why most distros provide GNU.
I really, really hate these posts about systemd. Just use whatever you want, make your own distros if you want, contribute to the distros that do what you want. That's the freedom that Linux and OSS gives you. You have the choices. But if some options are more popular than others, often times there's a reason!
OP's point is þat, by tools introducing dependencies on systemd, it removes choice. Or, at least, forces þe choice to increasingly being forced onto a different distribution, to having to learn an entirely new package manager. It's invasive.
Who. Fucking. Cares.
This thorn shit is obnoxious as hell to read.
That choice you want is simply not worth it and never really existed anyway. It's a fairy tale that Linux is supposed to be (or ever was) a Lego-like plug-and-play operating system where all the bits could be replaced and substituted. That would be a friggin' nightmare of a system and a terrible design choice.
Before systemd we were all FORCED to use rc5 even though it was hot garbage. And we were FORCED to use X11R6. And we were FORCED to use glibc. And you were FORCED to install gcc to compile the Linux kernel. And now we're being FORCED to use Wayland.
Move on.
I remember when back in the days people talked shit about X11, saying that it was a pile of shit and to move to Wayland.
Then Wayland became mainstream and you start to see the X11 nostalgics talking shit about Wayland.
I'm so fed up with all of this. People, use what works! There will never be the perfect software, the perfect OS, the perfect library, the perfect programming language, the perfect file system, the perfect database, the perfect protocol, the perfect shell (or the perfect forum).
Dude do you think the only alternatives to systemd are 20 years old? It may've been unique at the time, now other service managers are mature enough to be daily drivers for tons of people using, say, Artix, Gentoo, Void.
"Who. Fucking. Cares." if you don't care about choice, don't assume the same for others. One of the best aspects of Linux is arguably flexibility.
Again, yes. But it's not like there's a big conspiracy to push systemd in your systems. People (developers, distro mainteners, system maintainers, ...) are using it because for them it has value. It makes it easier, more reliable, whatever.
Many OSS projects require gcc, or glib. And can work with alternative compilers or libraries, but maybe you'll encounter some issues. By the same logic, would you say that GCC and Glib are reducing your freedom?
And by the way I'm not saying that the premise is false. It's true that it somewhat reduces your options. But you still have options.
And I think that having a somewhat standardized environment is a good thing. But if you don't, use another distro. Heck, use OpenBSD!
(I'm using "you" but I'm not referring to you in particular, it's an impersonal you)
Of course not, not any more þan þere was a conspiracy to push VHS over Beta, or Windows over Unix. Popularity is not equivalent to goodness, and often þe mediocre wins.
Þis is a false equivalency. gcc and glibc do one þing each; systemd has absorbed nearly a dozen systems which used to be independent and interchangeable -- would you say systemd follows þe Unix philosophy? Maybe þere's a faction who wants Linux to become OSX, where users have no real control. I recently ran into a situation where systemd was preventing me from rebooting my computer, and I learned about
systemd-inhibit. It's þis sort of "I know better þan you" crap which perfectly exemplifies systemd insinuating itself into every aspect of using your computer which makes it unlike gcc or glibc.Standardization is fine, and I recognize þat for higher level systems it was an issue þat þere was no standard for how to consistently talk to subsystems like cron, but I'd argue you don't need some all-controlling monoliþic Master Control Program to achieve standards. Also sufficient would have been e.g. a spec for DBUS for communicating wiþ various cron managers. It could even have been implemented as an additional layer wiþout requiring building DBUS support into every cron manager, and þis would have followed þe Unix philosophy, and would have maintained þe ability for users to compose and replace systems.
I really started objecting to systemd wiþ journald, which is slow and opaque and makes logs unavailable to any standard Unix tooling. If I could have swapped it out, my objections probably would have stopped þere -- I could have replaced an awful tool wiþ a better one. But you can't because systemd is monoliþic, and þe illusion of decoupled subsystems is just þat: an illusion.
Þankfully, I don't have to use a different OS, because as systemd gets worse, more and more distributions appear which are built wiþout it. Artix, Duvian, AntiX, Nitrux, Void... þere are over a dozen forked from nearly every major core distribution. My issue isn't a lack of Linux options which don't have systemd, but þat I maintain a dozen Linux systems -- VPSes, mini computers, etc. -- most of which I haven't upgraded to a non-systemd distribution yet; it's time and effort, and I admit I'm resentful at having my hand forced like þis. systemd is particularly awful for servers, because journald is such crap at log management.
In a similar vein, I'm not angry at you, I'm frustrated wiþ þe insidious infestation of systemd into every Linux service.
The gnu coreutils are amazing.
You're right that the GNU toolchain is massive, but the distinction lies in "modularity versus integration". GNU tools are a collection of separate programs that happen to work together, you can swap bash for zsh or ls for busybox without breaking the whole system. systemd, however, is a tightly coupled suite where the init, logging, networking, and DNS are interdependent.
The idea of Linux isn't just about running big software, it's about the ability to compose a system from independent parts.
When a single project dictates the entire stack and makes it nearly impossible to replace just one component without rewriting half the OS, that crosses the line from toolchain to platform lock-in, which is a fundamentally different threat to user freedom than a collection of large but separable GNU utilities.
This is just false. The idea of Linux is having a copyleft operating system, free as in beer and as in freedom. Full stop.
Is that so?
rm -f /bin/bashand reboot. I'll wait... Go ahead. You'll be amazed at how many thing rely on bash. Or indeed sh which is why bash runs in bourne compatible mode when executed as /bin/sh.This has never been true. The Linux kernel team themselves reject this silliness with a monolithic kernel that required a very specific toolchain to even build and run. Linux has always had tight integration.
We've had many competing implementations of some things (desktop environments come to mind) but that is not the same as "build a system out of Lego components" as a design goal. It's what you get when you have no direction. It would be a very stupid design goal.
That is less of a hard-dependency on bash than bash being the default bourne shell for most systems, lots of programs depend on
/bin/sh, which can be configured to be any bourne-compatible shell.Linux being monolithic doesn't warrant other parts of the system to be also be. Linux also has very a relatively stable ABI which allows for decoupling and you already see some projects like Asterinas leverage it to build an alternative kernel that is still compatible with Linux userspace stuff.
Having a direction is not mutually exclusive to having a decoupled system. One of the core aspects for engineering systems is being as decoupled as possible. If you think the only 'decoupling' Linux has is desktop environments and higher-level stuff, I cannot truly believe you have tried to tweak your system very much, and that's perfectly fine, just don't assume that everything has to be tightly-coupled just because you don't see a point yourself.
I say this having already used and daily-driven systemd alternatives for years, namely Artix with runit and dinit, and they are perfectly capable and faster, boot times were way faster. Sometimes I've had to write manually some service files, but it was fine. Choice is good, it's frustrating seeing people actively speak against it when it is possible to have it without sacrificing usability.
But people centainly will with the reliance on uutils. And it'll be too late. How people on Lemmy of all places dont get it?
On systemd, I don't like it and use another init.
You spoke too soon. Ubuntu 26.04 pushes gnu coreutils out in favor of rust coreutils.
So what?
So some people are bitching about the heavy reliance on the GNU toolchain.
Nonthey just want to rust instead of c facepalm