> The people who keep complaining about it seem more and more like children who just refuse to learn something new and better because they've already stumbled through all the holes it fills.
Systemd apologists always seems to think that anyone not completely in love with systemd, is just refusing to learn something new. Please stop with the stupidity, people have real reasons to hate that shit.
I had no problem with switching to WireGuard, after learning about it, because this is so much better in both use and design than OpenVPN that I have used for 20 years. I had no problem with learning about systemd either, but that is just badly designed software to me.
Just disable the parts you don't like on your system. I disable resolved everywhere I can and don't feel the need to go complaining about it. Where are you being labeled a systemd hater? Possibly it's more tone of voice than what you're complaining about.
I do, where I can. But with our clients It's often impossible (due to politics) to control all of the clients on the network, so I can't disable parts I don't like.
So I have to find workarounds, like intercepting DNS queries on network level, to fix what used to work before.
And if dnssec ever gets implemented, that wont work either.
Sure if I have access to the host, which I often don't[1].
I wrote whole wall of text but at the end of the day, its not that big of a deal,
It's more annoying explaing to customers that they have to talk to their other vendors to fix their configs, so sometimes just network level hack is easier.
[1] In enterprise environment and even some SMB environment its somewhat common (at least here in South EU) that big vendors just drop black boxes to you (usually in a form of vmware image, lately sometimes Docker containers). A lot of them are just stock RH, or Ubuntu with their software. ANd that comes with default fallback to goolge or cloudfalre DNS's
What has systemd-resolved got to do with the fact that you have to use black-boxes? If they had used no DNS management at all and instead just dumped entries in /etc/resolv.conf, you'd be just as SoL as you are now with systemd-resolved. If you can write to /etc/systemd, you can set whatever DNS config you want in the config file for systemd-resolved. I fail to see how our woes with bad software products have anything to do with systemd-resolved.
Most black boxes are just default linux distro with their vendor software on top.
Before systemd, you just needed to set correct DHCP config and it would all just work.
But nowdays distros come with systemd-resolved which usualy has (by deafult) fallback public DNS servers.
That means that boxes suddenly can switch from your DHCP network provided DNS servers (or even static DNS servers) to goolge (or cloudflare,) public DNS server.
Bottom line is, it used to be enough to set DNS server through DHCP (or static ones) that is no longer enough in some situations.
I'm not entirely certain that it is systemd-resolved's fault that the distro maintainers are setting default servers in the config. I'm not disputing that RHEL might, but debian certainly does not, nor any of the distros I've used recently, but I probably have a completely different perspective as I have to deal with more end-user focused distros. I do feel your pain though, DNS config management seems to be incredibly hard. And this fuckery where a OS default setting overrides the DHCP config you're pushing would be incredibly painful.
> I like the init part, i could do without everything else.
Then, do exactly that? None of the components you're complaining about are mandatory (except for journald, but you can easily forward log messages to a regular syslog daemon).
I actually thought that systemd is the init part.. Regarding DNS, is the systemd resolver just not advanced/flexible enough? I.e as a desktop user I can't complain about anything, but I don't configure it much either.
As a nitpick, I think "cohesion" and "coupling" are terms coming more from software engineering, I'm not sure they are objects of study in the computer science branch of mathematics.
Which isn't even correct because systemd consists of many individual parts that do their thing and are replacable. But because they all share the "systemd-*" naming pattern people think they're the same piece of software.
Would be funny if people made the same complaint about the various GNU core utils because those are all installed from the same package on most (all?) distros.
Please show independent working implementations of those "replaceable individual parts". AFAIK people who tried to do it found too many obstacles like undocumented or inconvenient API.
Sure, but that's like saying my coffee machine also makes latte and hot chocolate. I guess what I'm asking is: do any of these taste bad, and how? Perhaps the parent had a few of these on his/her mind that could have been listed.
Unix philosophy has a reason. It allows to easily replace components and simplifies testing. AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things.
> AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things.
You can easily replace timesyncd with any NTP daemon. You can easily replace networkd with any other networking manager. You can easily replace timer units with cron. You can easily forward log messages to a syslog daemon. You can easily replace systemd-boot with grub or any other boot manager.
It should be pretty obvious how baseless the monolithic arguments against systemd are.
I know the philosophy. What I'm trying to get at is that perhaps the thing that came before was a set of things that didn't quite work together, so now they made something that does.
(And was just wondering if there was any specific thing the original parent wanted to replace.)
Systemd apologists always seems to think that anyone not completely in love with systemd, is just refusing to learn something new. Please stop with the stupidity, people have real reasons to hate that shit.
I had no problem with switching to WireGuard, after learning about it, because this is so much better in both use and design than OpenVPN that I have used for 20 years. I had no problem with learning about systemd either, but that is just badly designed software to me.