Systemd (pro/con)

I got drawn into IPFire by distrowatch and Hacker News.

One of the comment is that there are plans to introduce systemd soon into IPFire.

I just finished removing systemd from om my last Linux box of 11. Systemd was removed due to their ability to NOT block attack against opened ports. This leaves ability to introduce file less malware via systemd. And systemd is a huge, resource hungry monolithic code.

Is the comment true that there is plan to introduce systemd into IPFire?

As Val Kilmer said, as Doc Holliday in Tombstone, “That’s the rumour”.

I, too, am NOT a fan of systemd… *nix has always been about “do one thing, and do it well”. I am not a fan of the “Microsoft, obscurity, binary files and hidden BS” bent of systemd.

I am considering taking back control of my firewall, should IPFire “advance” into systemd. Yes, I’ll probably phuck up, but I’ll have visibility into the system. I’ll just have to quit being lazy.

I’m old and slow, but I’d like to avoid all the “smoke, mirrors, and hand-waving”.

Guess I should consider spending some effort in relearning stuph I’ve surrendered to others.

IPFire3.x is being constructed with systemd.

I don’t see what all the angst is about systemd. There is no more

than there is with SysV/LSB

You can go and look at the source code for systemd and see what it is doing the same as with SysV.

The scripts are constructed differently but it is just a case of learning the rules for it, the same as had to be done when SysV was first introduced.

I am running Arch Linux on all my systems and it changed over to Systemd several years ago. There was a big hoohah when they announced it and after the learning process that was involved, as there always is with something new, it stabilised very quickly. I don’t see any

I am also old and retired but still learning new things. I coped without any real problems in moving from SysV to systemd. Also any time I need to create a startup script for something to run I now find it much easier with systemd and I can also be certain it will only try to run when all the dependencies have completed starting.

IPFire3.x is still a work in progress, so making any decision is not needed any time soon.

3 Likes

Hi,

as @bonnietwin already wrote, IPFire 2.x comes with SysV as an initsystem, and there are no plans to change this.

IPFire 3.x will indeed shift towards systemd - to my knowledge, however, we will be using it as an initsystem only (where is indeed much more powerful and flexible than SysV), and will not use it for anything else.

The systemd suite became quite confusing, as it appears to be capable of nearly any given task except for brewing coffee by now. I once had to dig deeper into systemd-timesyncd and systemd-resolved, which are lightweight daemons for NTP syncing and DNS resolving.

Both were working pieces of technology for most users, but did not provide all of the features we’d need in IPFire, and were not written primarily with security in mind. Therefore, I guess we will stick to Unbound as a DNS resolver in IPFire 3.x as well, trimming systemd down to a bare minimum. :slight_smile:

Hope to have your concerns solved.

Thanks, and best regards,
Peter Müller

2 Likes

Yes, this is exactly what we did.

systemd itself is good code. It is of great quality and it works well. This kind of innovation has not happened in sysvinit and we basically cannot live without it. We want an event-driven init system for various reasons and we want IPFire to be modern.

However, the “add-ons” like timesyncd, resolved, … are in my opinion very limited and serve a great deal on a simple desktop computer, but they are not for us.

2 Likes