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 599009
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by spiderman
by spiderman on Wed 5th Nov 2014 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by spiderman"
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

Each package has to know if it has to start with systemd, sysv init or both and install the scripts at the right place with symlinks and has to be tested 4 times. That's some work but thinking about it you are right it's not as hard as I first thought. Still a lot more work than packaging vi and emacs and making sure they work.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by spiderman
by intangible on Thu 6th Nov 2014 00:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by spiderman"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

To be fair, I think you could only use SysV init scripts and then SysV or systemd would both work since systemd is backwards compatible; then you wouldn't have as much duplicate but you'd lose every advantage systemd is bringing, so not really a solution ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2