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 599091
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: A cople of comments.
by Finalzone on Thu 6th Nov 2014 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE: A cople of comments."
Member since:

That's because systemd is fundamentally a RedHat technology. It's free, the source's available, etc... but the majority of the development is done by paid RedHat employees and decisions on its direction are taken by RedHat employees.

Systemd was started as personal project by a Red Hat employee and Novell/Suse employee who will be later hired by Red Hat in their own spare time to address the shortcoming of Upstart mainly due to Canonical hostile Clause Licensing Agreement (Very similar to OpenOffice under SUN and later Oracle).

During its early stage, an Arch contributor and other industry from GENEVI, Tizen, Jolla will add their contributions and the project moved to host. Systemd was never hosted on Red Hat website.

There's no way a pure volunteer-based effort can take on that both for lack of resources and for inability to make an impact (suppose that a new, better init system came out, do you think RedHat would take it in its distro after having sunk that much money and time into systemd development and education for their userbase?).

Add the adoption from embedded industry from Angstrom to GENEVI via Tizen from both Samsung and Intel. Over 500 contributions show systemd is hardly Red Hat project.

So I find unsurprising that part of Debian's userbase is unhappy with the choice. They weren't really given the choice - as in, it lived alongside other init systems for a while and was overwhelmingly preferred by users over alternatives.

Looking at the systemd mailing list, some of features and conventions came straight from Debian contributors themselves like /etc/os-release and /etc/hostname. Systemd contributors active participations to one Debian convention were a clear example.
Sysvint is a walking dead never designed to fully take advantage of Linux. OpenRC still relies on bash scripts, Upstart was fundamentally flawed by design as pointed out by its original creator and its CLA did not help the cause. kFreeBSD and Hurd are virtually experiment considering their usage so portability is very irrelevant.

It's a RedHat technology that's been introduced in RedHat, or RedHat-sponsored distributions because RedHat management decided that it was the best option for them and now it's becoming Debian's default by virtue of other pieces of software having significant dependencies on it[...]

It is a sum of over 500 contributons including Arch, Debian, Ubuntu, Open Suse, Jolla, Gentoo, Tizen and more.

Edited 2014-11-06 07:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5