this post was submitted on 10 May 2026
143 points (91.3% liked)
Technology
84603 readers
4532 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
SystemD does something everyone uses, though. Many may prefer other methods, but systemD still does cover the need for init, logging, and system control, which everyone with a PC does need.
LLMs are useful to only a subset of users, so including it in general distribution is waste, because many people will end up with this software that was downloaded, installed, and maintained by someone, but they never use at all. It may not be actively using their RAM, but it is still using their disk space and has dependencies that may load whether or not it is run.
In a time of grievous constraint on hardware availability, that kind of waste is literally impossible to tolerate for many, and will force users to fewer distro choices, so they do have skin in the game and grounds to make their voices heard.
That's absolutely untrue in this case.
If you read the article (the headline text is a link to an article) you would see that they specifically address this:
It won't be included in the general distribution. They're talking about a new system image that someone would have to choose to install.
There seems an epidemic around here of this phenomenon where, when discussing an article or other set of information, additional context, even when already brought up or requested, is regarded as not germane to the discussion.
I did read the article, as well as most of the other comments in this thread, some of which were referring to the "creep" effect of undesirable tools into other places once they get into some of the main places. That's what I am referring to. If you don't want to participate in that branch of the discussion, that's an option, as is even a drive-by down vote.
Scolding me for not rigidly sticking within the scope of the topic that started the conversation, even after the topic has drifted or broadened, seems not only counterproductive, but a waste of your time.
correct