Linked by jessesmith on Wed 5th Nov 2014 10:39 UTC
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 599019
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2008-11-25
Setting aside the fact that networkd is not intended to replace NetworkManager, would that really be such a bad thing?
Pretty much all of the network management solutions out there suck hard, with the possible exception of Arch Linux's netctl.
If systemd can ship a network management tool that gets rid of NetworkManager, more power to them. The NetworkManager command-line interface is atrocious, and given that Tom Gundersen (Arch developer) has been behind most of networkd, we may see something as excellent as Arch's netctl come out of this.
Member since:
2006-08-17
This is the problem with systemd.
Replacing the init system, who cares. Solaris SMF, Mac Launchd, BSD init, SysV Init, SystemD, at the "init level", they're basically silent and unintrusive. While the software impacts system management tasks, they don't impact actual software.
SystemD, however, does impact software. Now you have software that depends on SystemD, and that dependency is not simply an extra library you need to install along with the software, it's something more fundamental, more active. Because SystemD is not an idle participant.
If SystemD didn't have such a large collateral impact, I think the uproar would be non-existent. Because then SystemD would be an actual choice, like vi vs Emacs. Instead, it has a much large external footprint. "
Because it bundles logind and udev.