SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The good people over at Infoworld have published a story outlining why they feel systemd is a disaster.
Excerpt from Infoworld:
While systemd has succeeded in its original goals, it's not stopping there. systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux—which I don't think most Linux folks want. You see, systemd is growing, like wildfire, well outside the bounds of enhancing the Linux boot experience. systemd wants to control most, if not all, of the fundamental functional aspects of a Linux system—from authentication to mounting shares to network configuration to syslog to cron. It wants to do so as essentially a monolithic entity that obscures what's happening behind the scenes.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
systemd: Harbinger of the Linux Apocalypse.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 98 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:23PM
There are legitimate problems with sysvinit, specifically, dependency tracking is a hack and fragile at best, requiring ordering by hand to make sure things come up right. A dependency based system like launchd/upstart is worth it in my opinion since it drastically reduces boot fragility. Upstart DOES have some issues (try using Ubuntu in a chroot without replacing initctl with /bin/true), but all things considered, it was the "right" approach. Debian experimented with replacing sysvinit with upstart, and nearly did so right about the time systemd started becoming a thing.
Once I'm free and clear of professional obligations, I'm going to take to running FreeBSD for awhile, and try to get some perspective on things.
Still always moving