zlacker

[return to "Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support"]
1. antony+Qc[view] [source] 2026-02-02 18:46:15
>>cf100c+(OP)
All I want is init scripts and X11, but the horizons are shrinking. I've already compromised with systemd, and I don't like it. I see BSD in my future, or at least a linux distro from the list here https://nosystemd.org/ - probably Gentoo. Nothing to stop me, absolutely nothing at all. I just need a few days free to backup/wipe/reinstall/reconfigure/restore_data and I'll be good. Better make that a few weeks. Maybe on my next machine build. It's not easy, but I build machines for long term use.

As for Linux from Scratch - This is something that's been on my radar, but without the part I'm truly interested in (learning more about SysV) then I'm less inclined to bother. I don't buy the reason of Gnome/KDE - isn't LfS all about the basics of the distro than building a fully fledged system? If it's the foundation for the other courses, but it still feels weak that it's so guided by a future GUI requirement for systemd when it's talking about building web servers and the like in a 500Mb or less as the motivation.

◧◩
2. tokyob+ug[view] [source] 2026-02-02 19:05:04
>>antony+Qc
I wonder if the impetus behind the (terrible) monolithic design of systemd was to force standardization across distros. The choice was more political than technical.

If different choices were available for init, DNS resolver, service control manager, volume manager, etc... we would adversely contribute to the schizo distro landscape the people holding the money bags are actively trying to get away from.

With systemd it's an all-or-nothing deal. You get the good with the bad, but all distros shit the bed in the same, deterministic way.

Not even Windows does this. There is no "systemd" equivalent. Yes, Windows ships as a single OS—as do the BSDs—but all the components were developed separately.

If all they wanted was a service control manager, there were many (better) options already in existence they could have used.

◧◩◪
3. bryanl+zl[view] [source] 2026-02-02 19:32:16
>>tokyob+ug
systemd is not a monolith, and distros make different choices on what portions of systemd they which to ship and enable by default.

For example, not all distros ship and use systemd-resolved by default, to choose from your list.

◧◩◪◨
4. bsimps+Yo[view] [source] 2026-02-02 19:46:57
>>bryanl+zl
systemd-boot competes with grub
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jeroen+2C2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 09:52:04
>>bsimps+Yo
Outside of Arch(-derived) enthusiast circles, I haven't seen systemd-boot used anywhere.

It has some really nice tools and features that Grub lacks (i.e. it has tooling for checking the state of things like secure boot and analysing the security risks of your boot configuration), but every mainstream Linux OS I've used still relies on tools like Grub to boot.

I have some gripes with systemd-boot's limitations (notably, the insistence on an unthemed, white-on-black menu system that's not exactly enticing to Linux newcomers) but it's hard to deny its merits. Grub is tied together with a spider web of scripts calling each other, loading modules, generating code that is then executed again, and one mistake in one script can cause the bootloader config four scripts down the line to fail, leaving the system unbootable; the concise configuration file for systemd-boot makes for a much better bootloader configuration system in my opinion.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. tmtvl+ZW2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 12:27:26
>>jeroen+2C2
OpenSUSE uses systemd-boot for its GRUB2 BLS implementation (<https://news.opensuse.org/2024/10/08/grub2-bls/>). It's really awesome because it lets me boot from Btrfs snapshots on a fully LUKS2 argon2id encrypted system.
[go to top]