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 599221
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The idea behind integrating that into the systemd project (as far as I can tell), is that a fully external utility couldn't be properly integrated into the boot sequence, whereas with mount units, you can specify exactly which dependencies exist for each mount, so you don't get non-core mounts sitting there trying to probe for a non-attached network interface, for example.

By specifying your own mount units, as opposed to automatic generation through fstab, you can have a great deal more say over how and when your mount occurs.

Reply Parent Score: 3