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 599004
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

I'm aware you can run some SysV init scripts in systemd but the devil is in the details. Many scripts won't work. Those who depend on env variables like $HOME for instance will break. Moreover it will break a lot of other stuff that depend on /etc/init.d, runlevels and such things of SysV init. It may seem trivial but actually this kind of small details can bring hell. Each script will have to be tested against systemd. Some developers just won't bother and their software will suddently stop working.

Just for the record I'm not defending sysv, I'm just pointing out there are drawbacks. The benefit may be worth it, I don't have an opinion about that.

Edited 2014-11-05 16:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

It's not like their software will just stop working, though... The developers who can't be bothered to update their scripts for systemd if they have hard dependencies on a particular script environment will either reduce the number of platforms they support, or update it.

If they're not going to run it at all, it's unsupported anyway, so any users that want to keep using it would have to take up maintainership.

You're right that "no drawbacks" was a bit hyperbolic, but if they're not going to update their software to run on their current platform, chances are they weren't going to fix bugs in it either.

Reply Parent Score: 3