... and then we had wonderful souvlaki! OPPA!!!

ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ

It probably also works, depending on your audience.

Works on my machine

It is a discussion about the UNIX philosophy and architecture and it is not about functionality. That’s why it seems to be a bit short-sighted. However, I do understand both sides, but I would never go this far and create a website to promote my views and opinions. It is as if you had a discussion between team emacs and team vim.

Even though that the reliability of OpenRC is 0.00000001% higher, they keep forgetting about operational costs. And since my day only has 24h, I’d rather be able to copy&paste an installation script from the Docker website (which includes systemd commands), instead of manually writing it and losing 30min of that day.

But you know, to each their own. I love OpenRC, I love systemd.

I was annoyed with binary logs until I found cases where compressing logs was literally 10x or more improvement, like if you ran into a bug that just repeatedly spit the same log.

And I know logrotate compresses text logs too but if you're going to compress logs into tar.gz, might as well just make it binary by default and have a nice interface (journald) on top

You know it's not a single binary, right ? Systemd is a bunch of different, mostly single usage, mostly optional, binaries. As far as Unix philosophy goes, Systemd is definitely following the principles, which is not the case for the Kernel for instance.

As for the binary logs, I used to hate it, but then, not having to manually parse logs for filtering is really nice.

I do have my issues with Systemd, but it not following the Unix philosophy is not one of them.

Richard P. Gabriel, in his essay “The Rise of Worse-is-Better,” expounds on this theme (see Appendix A). His thesis is that the Unix design philosophy requires that all design decisions err on the side of implementation simplicity, and not on the side of correctness, consistency, or completeness. He calls this the “Worse Is Better” philosophy and shows how it yields programs that are technically inferior to programs designed where correctness and consistency are paramount, but that are evolutionarily superior because they port more easily. Just like a virus.

The highest achievement of the Unix-aesthetic is to have a command that does precisely one function, and does it well (...) This philosophy, in the hands of amateurs, leads to inexplicably mind-numbing botches like the existence of two programs, “head” and “tail,” which print the first part or the last part of a file, depending. Even though their operations are duals of one another, “head” and “tail” are different programs, written by different authors, and take different options!

From The Unix Hater's Handbook

(I like Linux, but it's not all sunshine and rainbows)

It's not people disliking it that makes no sense to me; everyone has their opinions.

I just can't imagine having the level of anger displayed by some of the most vocal of the anti-systemd crowd.

be nice to him, he's baffled

There's also a few cases of feature and scope creep, including the infamous systemd-resolved.
Systemd, your job is to launch services, manage logs, and do timers and relaunches on a service crash. DNS is out of scope, leave that to existing services.

What systemd binary is the worst offender, in your opinion?

A single binary? What?

Systemd changing from text to binary logs is my pet peeve.

Fast searchable compressed files is a fantastic idea.

The other day on a thread here about "people who use other init systems, why?" and i wrote about my experience with systemd and git downvoted for mysterious reasons. Other people that did the same as me also got their downvote sixpacks. And now they want to make it seem like it's just the people that hate systemd the annoying ones...

I yell in rcctl