Memes

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

To any new Linux users, this is a good example of Linux “antivax” mindset.

Actual Linux admins, people who use Linux at scale, people who design things and use Linux to do things disagree.

There is a reason why Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch all ship with and recommend systemd as the startup system. ALL as in 100% of large Linux deployments on bare metal use systemd.

If you want to play with startup systems that’s fine there are obscure distros out there for you. Startup system swapping can be a fun hobby.

But don’t be tricked by the very loud but very small Linux “antivaxers” group.

The grand majority of systemd haters have no idea why they hate systemd or what an init system even is, they just know their favorite youtuber told them "systemd bad" and blindly agreed.

Systemd is running rent-free in their heads

Replace everything is a file with "everything is a byte stream with a file handle" and your there.

There is A LOT of Unix that doesn't stick to the convention of "everything is a text file" and for good reason.

oh you .... you got me good. Here take this https://preview.redd.it/941u10hnykcb1.jpg?width=821&auto=webp&s=9cd1cf2f4e33270ba2b8d2a4d85b5f0cb952c4aa

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'systemd/GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it systemd/GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'systemd/GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the systemd/GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, systemd/XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my systemd spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'systemd Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

I literally don't even know what systemd is, I think I've seen it in the Resource Manager 😅

Shout-out to the open source community and Steam for making Linux gaming so simple that even I can do it

Edit: I now have a passing understanding of what systemd is, and understand there is a Holy War to be fought between those in support of it, and those who prefer more modular init scripts. To arms!

Just as bloated as emacs.