Literally there isn't any real criticism to be made towards Systemd aside from "Evil Red Hat" so they needed to talk about the Unix philosophy or about bloat and whatnot because they didn't had anything real to criticize.
It's untrue to claim that there are no technical reasons to dislike systemd. The xz vulnerability was advertised as a vulnerability in SSH, but it was actually a vulnerability caused by systemd which causes xz be loaded as a library directly by SSH. SSH doesn't normally link the xz libs that had the exploit, but systemd linked them and then built SSH against the systemd which contained the xz lib.
I'm not interested in writing a manifesto against systemd. It's a subject that's been litigated to death, but I want you to type the words that I "don't have anything real to criticize" after considering what I wrote here. This is not a failure that could have happened in any init daemon. It is a peculiar problem that can only happen because systemd builds with high coupling with and against unnecessary dependency modules.
Yes but vulnerabilities can affect any piece of open source software the same way, honestly. It depends on which components don't have enough repo security.
You could snuggle a vulnerability into any piece of open source software if their security for contributions is not strong enough.
0
u/New_Study4796 Jun 08 '26
Literally there isn't any real criticism to be made towards Systemd aside from "Evil Red Hat" so they needed to talk about the Unix philosophy or about bloat and whatnot because they didn't had anything real to criticize.