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.
Thread beginning with comment 598981
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that this is the case ;)

By sysv and OpenRC are inadequate, I meant either through lacking features such as are provided by logind and journald, or by lacking core systemd features which mean proper process management.

All of these developers aren't swapping for no reason, even if that reason is "it's easier to maintain unit files, and journalctl is really nice."

Reply Parent Score: 3

hobgoblin Member since:

In other words, developers are just as lazy as the rest of us...

Reply Parent Score: 2

woegjiub Member since:

I wouldn't necessarily call it lazy.

I'd be more inclined to call writing bash scripts to look after starting and stopping software unnecessary, project-unrelated maintenance.

Why do something that is harder, more prone to errors, and less reliable?

Reply Parent Score: 4