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 599136
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: A cople of comments.
by crystall on Thu 6th Nov 2014 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A cople of comments."
Member since:

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.

Let's be intellectually honest, shall we? Grep'ing systemd's git log shows >80% of contributions coming from RedHat employees. There might be more as I didn't bother to track down all RedHat employees not using their professional e-mail addresses but it shows a project that is predominantly directed and developed by RedHat. You'd be naive to think that its future direction wasn't approved by RedHat's management. Contributions from the entities you mentioned above are a few tens of commits over a total of >17k. That's not even counting the size of those contributions by line changes which are likely to even more overwhelmingly favor RedHat.

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.

I can count tens of commits from Debian contributors and in many cases they're the bare minimum to adapt a very RedHat-centric design to work on a different distribution.

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

You can repeat that as many time as you want. It doesn't change the fact that the project is largely a RedHat one. The data readily available in the repository shows a completely different picture than your quote.

To drive another couple of points: systemd has practically zero penetration in the embedded market. The predominant startup system for Linux-derived embedded uses is Android's 'init' which can be arguably considered even more primitive than simpler alternatives such as openrc. That's just to show how much the embedded market cares about systemd.

Second note: my primary distribution has been Fedora since version 8 IIRC which means I've been using systemd on my primary machine for as long as I can remember. It boots fast, it provides relatively easy tools to manage what little changes need to be done in a desktop's startup procedure and it only gave me a couple issues. I'm fine with it. I don't like certain choices they made but they're not hard to change via configuration & helpers. I'm fine with it. Does this make it any less RedHat-centric? No, and that's why the user-base of a volunteer-based effort such as a Debian's is resisting this kind of change.

Reply Parent Score: 2