Linked by jessesmith on Wed 5th Nov 2014 10:39 UTC
Linux Over the past year I've been reading a lot of opinions on the new init technology, systemd. Some people think systemd is wonderful, the bee's knees. Others claim that systemd is broken by design. Some see systemd as a unifying force, a way to unite the majority of the Linux distributions. Others see systemd as a growing blob that is slowly becoming an overly large portion of the operating system. One thing that has surprised me a little is just how much people care about systemd, whether their opinion of the technology is good or bad. People in favour faithfully (and sometimes falsely) make wonderful claims about what systemd is and what it can supposedly do. Opponents claim systemd will divide the Linux community and drive many technical users to other operating systems. There is a lot of hype and surprisingly few people presenting facts.
Permalink for comment 599082
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Complexity
by grat on Thu 6th Nov 2014 05:32 UTC in reply to "Complexity"
grat
Member since:
2006-02-02

Presumably these are all statically linked into the binary so that emergency booting is possible (like if I cannot mount /usr or /var or something else important).


Under Red Hat 7, the combination of systemd and Fedora's "improved file layout" (ie, move /bin into /usr/bin) means if you have a system that has /usr on a separate partition-- It cannot be upgraded to Red Hat 7, and may or may not work (systemd relies on /usr being available when it starts).

Minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but it means my group can't upgrade any of our servers in-place to RHEL7.

Does make you wonder about the size of the initramfs, though.

Reply Parent Score: 2