• jrgd@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Could you elaborate on this? As someone who uses SystemD extensively on workstations and servers for spawning and managing both system-level and user-level services, I do find minimal issues overall with SystemD minus some certain functionalities such as socket spawning/respawning.

    Of course some of default SystemD’s housekeeping services do suck and I replace them with others. I would like to see the ability to just remove those services outright from my systems as separate packages since they do remain useless, but it isn’t that big of an issue.

    • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Systemd has a larger attack surface area since it touches more things, even though you can assign user accounts and such. Just the simple fact that it does more things than simply executing a shell script (like everything before systemd does) makes it more vulnerable.

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

        Systemd has a larger attack surface area since it touches more things

        That’s what the critics always say but are the things it manages unnecessary? If not, you’d use other tools for that but the overall attack surface would be the same.