• Chemical Wonka@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Roughly speaking, it is because it does not follow the Unix philosophy and proposes to do several tasks making the code very complex and therefore more susceptible to bugs.

    • epat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      But systemd is not a single tool, nor a single binary, it’s a collection of tools.

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          That is a bit like asking “name one thing that coreutils does well” or “name one thing GNU does well”.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The joke being “systemd does everything poorly”. First heard someone say this about X and Wayland. People were saying Wayland violated Unix philosophy and the speaker said “name one thing X does well” lol.

            • taladar@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Systemd might not be perfect but it certainly does every single thing init scripts did better than any init script.

    • frippa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Don’t the Linux kernel or the GNU core utils violate unix philosophy too? Philosophical ideas become outdated, there aren’t many presocratics around.

      • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        The linux kernel unfortunately does not follow unix philosophy.

        It would be better in various ways if the linux kernel used a micro kernel architecture following the unix philosophy, something Torwalds acknowledged in the past.

        Philosophical ideas being lost does not mean they’re outdated.

        • frippa@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          How old in the past did Linus acknowledge it? my source says he dislikes/disliked microkernel, it dates to 2001 ,if you have a more recent source proving that he no longer thinks it I’ll look at it

          The source is this

          Unfortunately I can’t remember the timestamp, but it’s right around when he starts speaking about when the MINIX creator bashed him, IIRC (not to bash on you, but this implies the point you’re making, that Linux shouldn’t have a monolithic kernel is 30 years old,)

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      As opposed to which other tools that respect Unix philosophy. Philosophy which I might add is severely outdated. That could have been a thing when you have simple command line interfaces but pretty much every application today violates that philosophy and nothing of value was lost.