I’m curious to know why people use systemd-less distributions. Which one would you recommend to someone who wants to stop using systemd?

  • BB_C@programming.dev
    01·
    5 days ago

    Your “separate utilities developed under systemd umbrella” claim was simply false.

    Your attempted retort was even more funny, since many coreutils implementations can actually literally be built into a single binary with many symlinks, with dispatch done based on arg0. It’s even the preferred packaging option.

    There are a lot of interdependencies within those source trees. Nothing is self-contained. So the “itz just monorepo bro” is also false.

    they also overreaching and that’s THE point?

    You literally just listed multiple projects 🤭, where their collective surface is also nowhere close the the systemd forced hegemony. Maybe they should all unite and join the “umbrella”.

    • Tobias Hunger@programming.dev
      0·
      4 days ago

      Of course there are dependencies. They all are tools that do one thing well amd call into other tools to do thenthings those tools were built to do. E.g. many need systemd-init to function as that is the tool to manage the livetime of services running on the system.

    • esc@piefed.socialEnglish
      0·
      4 days ago

      It wasn’t because it’s true. They are literally separate utilities. Many is exactly two (i think) busybox and whatever the other one is called. For vast majority of people and in context it should be obvious that coreutils I was referring to is GNU coreutils, you are being intentionally obtuse. There are three, I believe, mandatory parts that fall under systemd umbrella everything else is either optional or separate. Interdependency angle is disengenious at best, programs can and have dependencies, it’s laughable that you think that they aren’t separate utilities because they depend on other utility.

      Forced hegemony I’m dying lol.

      • BB_C@programming.dev
        0·
        5 days ago

        Let’s play a game. Pick a “separate utility” from the list above, and let’s see if you know what you’re talking about, or just waffling.

          • BB_C@programming.dev
            0·
            4 days ago

            First one on the list.

            % readelf -d /usr/bin/bootctl | rg -r '$1' '.*NEEDED.*\[(.*)\]'
libsystemd-shared-262-1.so
libgcc_s.so.1
libc.so.6
            • esc@piefed.socialEnglish
              0·
              4 days ago

              Are you familiar with the concept of shared libraries? Please, stop embarrasing yourself.

                • esc@piefed.socialEnglish
                  0·
                  4 days ago

                  How boring.

                  Will you ever get to the point where you say clearly why exactly bootctl isn’t a separate utility? No, having dependencies doesn’t make something not a separate utility. And no, communicating with systemd daemon over unix sockets doesn’t as well.

                  • BB_C@programming.dev
                    1·
                    4 days ago

                    Good.

                    So the tool YOU chose is NOT:

                    • standalone at the project level ✅
                    • standalone at the repo level ✅
                    • standalone at the source level (trivially shown with the libsystemd-shared.so dep without requiring looking further) ✅
                    • standalone/fully independent at the runtime level ✅

                    This and the sibling sub-thread where I mentioned presets show with actual facts how the systemd forced hegemony actually works, where it’s not just a simple case of “they just have some stand-alone cli tools under their umbrella bro”.

                    The project itself wouldn’t try to (clumsily) dispute this either, since it’s at the core of what they consider a selling point; interface unification and deeper integration with the system.