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 599024
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

How long can you guarantee that option C will be there?

With the mission creep of systemd, more and more user facing projects are likely to develop some kind of systemd dependency for some "reason" or other.

End result is that if you want to use program X, you now have to have systemd sub-system Y, and that again depends on systemd running as pid1 (init).

At no time in the past have user facing programs cared what kind of init the system is running.

Reply Parent Score: 7