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 599022
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
missing the objection...
by hobgoblin on Wed 5th Nov 2014 18:23 UTC
Member since:

This editorial is missing the objection that i, and others, have with systemd.

It has long since moved beyond being "just" a init.

It incorporates udev (yes, you can compile "just" udev. But it still involves downloading the whole systemd tarball and using special configure switches), networking, dhcp, dns, a cron alternative, and i have long since given up on tracking the mission creep.

But the real bugbear is that interacting with systemd involves APIs, thus you can have things like the login portion of Gnome depending on logind (a systemd sub-system) that again depends on having systemd running as init.

That is a tightness of connection that no Linux project in the past has had.

The flexibility of Linux have come from the various parts being loosely connected, allowing parts to be added or removed as the admin/user found fitting.

This meant that what you were running as a UI didn't care how you got your system up or running, just that useful daemons were running or not.

Systemd breaks with this, and breaks quite sharply.

Reply Score: 2

RE: missing the objection...
by TemporalBeing on Wed 5th Nov 2014 22:54 in reply to "missing the objection..."
TemporalBeing Member since:

Exactly; and the decision by GNOME to use it is being forced on everyone else.

I use KDE; I don't use anything from GNOME; some Gtk based apps (namely Pidgin) but that's it. My system does not require SystemD, yet because it is easier for the distro (e.g Ubuntu) to support it than rip it out, they use it.

It is so interwoven by GNOME that it is extremely hard for distros to support GNOME and non-GNOME desktops and give users a choice of whether or not to use SystemD.

And THAT is where the problem comes in with the design of SystemD - people that do not want to use it are being forced to simply because of GNOME.

And that's not right.

Reply Parent Score: 2

woegjiub Member since:

1) It's systemd, not SystemD.

2) KDE with Wayland is going to require the functionality provided by logind, so don't go too heavy on the gnome bashing.

Reply Parent Score: 2