DO Ideas 2


Currently all the Linux options for creating new droplets are based on systemd. Ubuntu, fedora, debian, coreos, or centos. Some of the older versions aren't running systemd, but it would be nice if there was a distro in the mix that had a strong stance against systemd. There's a request to support devuan, but that's a little alpha at the moment. Something a bit more stable would be nice, with a strong guarantee that systemd and associated garbage won't get pulled into the base server image ever.

  • Anonymous
  • Sep 11 2018
  • Attach files
  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 16:32

    Great question! I'm (still) looking for this as well. I'd just add that one commenter was asking about why it's no good - this is a highly polarizing topic, but those who dislike it really do, and would prefer not to have to use it. Why force one option when there are many? Another commenter asked for a name of a stable non-systemd distro. There are a few, but maybe Alpine Linux is the most common lightweight one. It's really awesome. How awesome? Awesome enough that other people already use it on D.O.:

    Another option could be something like antiX, which is based on Arch.

  • Spidey commented
    September 11, 2018 16:32

    systemd problems, specific:

    Lennart Poettering doesn't understand RAID & checksum:

    Lennart Poettring doesn't understand why/how 'su' came to be and what is supposed to happen:

    Lennart Poettering doesn't understand rm -rf:

    Scope Creep -
    init, journaling (binary format,, login, network (http server!!!), systemd-tmpfiles, ntpd, udev, libudev, and boot...
    This COMPLETELY destroys the idea of one tool, one job of Linux. And, Poettering et al do not care.
    Design flaws:
    How to brick a motherboard:

    Filename issues, -.slice:

    Security issue with journald:

    Plus, the way Poettering & Sievers come across has been so horrible that the Linux kernel team, through Torvalds, has previously stated that they want nothing to do with Sievers or Poettering at one time or another. To me, and I feel that I must say this, they come across as complete asshats.

    I could go on about security through simplicity and what-have-you:

    Hoare: "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult. It demands the same skill, devotion, insight, and even inspiration as the discovery of the simple physical laws which underlie the complex phenomena of nature."

  • James Tatum commented
    September 11, 2018 16:32

    Agreed with The Digital Orchard, and also wondering if you could name a Linux distro you think is mature and has taken "a strong stance against systemd." This isn't meant as a jibe, I just can't think of any offhand.

  • The Digital Orchard commented
    September 11, 2018 16:32

    There's always going to be two camps of people around any technology, but indirectly referring to systemd as 'garbage' probably won't win many votes here. Can you elaborate a bit more on why you think that systemd is not a good sysadmin tool, or provide a link to more information on that subject?

    I'm by no means an advanced sysadmin, but I do have 25 droplets set up.. 24 of them running Ubuntu, and one running CentOS. I don't personally experience any problems with them. No limitations. So what am I missing that non-systemd servers have? That's the type of helpful info that would be good to add here. :)