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 599229
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Actually in this case it's not even that. Most software in Linux doesn't depend on SystemD; only GNOME does.

Distros are switching because they want to support GNOME and the easiest path to do so is to switch the whole system over regardless of whether the user uses GNOME or not.

So, in the end, the decision of the GNOME folks to take a hard dependency on SystemD is screwing everyone else.

Need to remind nobody stepped up to maintain ConsoleKit despite GNOME warning for years. GNOME uses logind and KDE recently adopted it. Those are a few example where most non systemd people only talk but do nothing.

Edited 2014-11-06 22:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3