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 598993
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Missed the point
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 5th Nov 2014 14:21 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:

systemd is controversial for many, if not most people, because it uses dbus rather than pipes for communicating between the various separate parts. When old school Unix guys think about how to send information from one app to another they think pipe. There is a better, safer way to do that now for system components, called dbus. If you understand that, you understand that systemd is more of an evolution of Unix philosophies, than a replacement.

Also, correction from the editorial, systemd is only default init on linux kernel systems. sysvinit is still default on bsd and hurd.

I, personally, don't think the lack of choice is the main issue. There are plenty of other parts of a linux system that have no alternative, but no one has complained about it.

systemd is mature and production ready for most systems.

Reply Score: 3