SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Controversy is nothing new when it comes to systemd. Many people find this new Linux init system to be inherently flawed in most ways, yet it is still gaining traction with major distros like Arch Linux, openSUSE, Fedora, and soon both Ubuntu and Debian GNU/Linux. The adoption of systemd for Debian 8 "Jessie" has been particularly fraught with strife and animosity.
Some have described the systemd adoption process as having been a "coup", while others are vowing to stick with Debian 7 as long as possible before moving to another distro. Others are so upset by what they see as a complete betrayal of the Debian and open source communities that there is serious discussion about forking Debian. Regardless of one's stance toward systemd, it cannot be argued that it has become one of the most divisive and disruptive changes in the long history of the Debian project, threatening to destroy both the project and the community that has built up around it.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday September 29 2014, @12:42AM
Think of the BASH bug. What would you do if you found out tomorrow that it was deliberately introduced, and furthermore that the core team had been compromised from the beginning and there were probably dozens of more subtle exploits left?
Well, we'd switch to zsh. Or csh, tcsh, ksh, whatever freaking sh you prefer. There are several, they are independent, and they are essentially drop in replacements for each other, with each adding new features but maintaining backward compatibility so that scripts dont break. Each does the same job, and you dont really have to worry about 'does the new shell support all the same programs as the old one' - there is a standard interface and the program doesnt care which shell you used to start it.
Same is true for practically any element of the architecture. Same is definitely true for inits. People talk about 'SysV Init' like it's a thing, but it's just a spec a lot of people implemented in their own way. But each init basically does that one thing, and each can be ripped out and replaced with whatever you want. Like, ironically, /bin/sh. Yes, that's right, want a really fast boot? Set /bin/sh to init, done, go home. Most people want a little bit more setup than that done before getting to the login prompt, but it DOES work, and your init CAN be as simple as a shell script with a few commands you got sick of typing in every boot.
Now imagine a shell replacement that included an incompatible format for text, an editor for that incompatible format, and a large and growing pile of ABIs for program development and system management and so forth. It doesnt just replace the shell, but a good chunk of your system. And if you adopt it and use it, more and more of your work going forward will only be accessible to people using the same shell. Which is all well and good, cause it's better, see?
Systemd is not just an init system, and you cannot just rip it out and replace it with another init system when you want to. The seriously disturbing track record of the main personalities behind it in regards to bugs is really beside the point. I want an init system. Not an init system + obligatory binary logger with a pointless broken text option + superwonderful obligatory binary log file viewer (want to suck it into vi for a sec for something? NO SOUP FOR YOU!) + dev manager (only non-obligatory at this point because of eudev - thank you gentoo!) + consolekit replacement (someone want to pick that one up and dust if off?) + "services management" suite all in one non-negotiable whole.
I've watched the same kind of thinking at work in the Windows world for decades and Linux has been my refuge from that insanity. I have no intention of importing it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?