SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:30PM
Thanks for the correction on what goes in PID 1, systemd isn't QUITE as abraindead as I thought it is, but I've recently had my first RL experiences with it on Fedora (helping a friend managle postfix into working), and it managed to cause nothing but frustration in detecting new service files, and then confirming they run. I don't understand how it can be hard to do any of this; half the time, I was fighting systemd to get shit to properly enable (not knowing I had to tell it to rebuild its internal index), and then getting misleading messages from status.
What a mess.
Still always moving