I know I’m not the only one that said this but I really can’t stand how systemd is becoming “the norm” init system for every major distro, this is bad.

it is especially bad when certain apps are built specifically for systemd, locking users behind a specific init system and compatibility issues spark because you don’t use a mainstream one , this doesn’t go with the idea of Linux, which is having “freedom” with your os, picking and choosing what goes on and off while still being usable.

I switched to artix Linux with openRC a while ago the moment systemd added code for potential age verification, they called it malicious compliance but I really didn’t like the smell of that, now I’m fighting tooth and nail with some applications because they’re systemd dependent, resulting in me creating custom scripts to mitigate their issues.

  • OppressedBread@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    didn’t say that distros have to bend for my will in regards to needing to include options other than systemd, everyone is free to publish whatever they wish and If I don’t like it, I won’t use it, simple as that.

    I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options

    • talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      It would seem my point is not getting through (ie. I must not have expressed it well enough).

      You having freedom doesn’t mean other people have a duty to support what you do - it just means they don’t have legal ground to stop you.

      For example, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that newspaper must publish whatever you write - it just means the police won’t come knocking on your door at 5am because you of something you wrote.

      The “idea of linux” (by which I take you mean the idea of FOSS in general, not of the kernel specifically) isn’t to support anything and everything.

      Does dropping 32 bit go against the “idea of linux”? Does software being developed/tested only on specific distros go against it? Do devs that only supporting glibc because they don’t care about musl go against the idea of linux?

      I’m just expressing a concern where over relying on one init system will limit options

      Nope, nothing actually limits the options of people who don’t like systemd: if they want to run some FOSS piece of software whose upstream devs don’t care about openrc (or whatever init of choice), they’ll just have to fork the projects, put the work in, and the upstream devs won’t be able to stop them in any way.

      This is what the “freedom” in FOSS means. Twisting it to mean that upstream goes against “the idea of linux” if they don’t support whatever thing you care about and they don’t is entitled.

    • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      The only option limiter to ever exist in Linux is the amount of free time maintainers have and the effort they’re willing to spend.

      (This is a convoluted way to tell you that if you want more “anything” independence you should contribute)

      • OppressedBread@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        man i love contributing to open source projects so much, its my way of saying thank you to the developers if I don’t plan on supporting them through donations