• wabasso@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Can you elaborate? Are there a lot of security holes in systemd? (Genuine question)

        • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m pretty sure their arguments boil down to “big company bad” as systemd is developed by Red Hat. Putting a single entity’s products in charge of several basic functions of the computer (like booting, init, daemons, networking) is seen as a bad idea, especially Red Hat which disgraced itself by making the RHEL source code available only to customers (which does not violate the license), but so far I don’t know of any solid evidence of security holes caused by either incompetence or malice.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Systemd-boot and the service files and timers are pretty neat. Works fine as an init too I guess

  • afb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t hate systemd, but I prefer OpenRC and usually use it on my Debian systems. My preference is purely vibes based though, and I think most of the anti-systemd arguments in common usage are a bit silly.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      My biggest problem with systemd is that Red Hat has basically used it to push their-way-or-the-highway on many Linux distros. That said, in many situations systemd is better than what came before. Except systemd-networkd. It’s a PITA as far as I’m concerned.