I am not the author.

  • menixator@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I think if systemd were documented in a more consumable format (the man pages need better organization IMO) more people would see how powerful it is. Mounting directories with BindPath, and BindPathRO, Limiting systemcalls, socket activation and cgroup integration, and nspawn containers are features I can’t live without.

    I feel like a lot of people that get attached to the “It tries to do everything and it’s against the unix philosophy” might change their minds when they see the tradeoffs. It has its problems for sure, but you get a lot out of it.

    These days I don’t even use docker containers for running services. I just put it in a systemd service and lock it down as tightly as I can.

      • menixator@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’ll find blog spam and ai slop if you look it up online. Systemd’s website/man pages should be the resource that brings me up to speed.

        I had to read about run0 and other upcoming systemd features from Lennart’s Mastodon which I’m not a fan of either. These kinds of things should be on the systemd website itself.

    • mr_strange@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s powerfulness IS the problem. Some parts of systemd are great. Some are meh! Some really suck. But because it’s monolithic, you can’t take the good bits and replace the bad. You have to take it all or nothing.

      That’s the problem. Its architecture is offensively bad.