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 599035
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Complexity
by Sully on Wed 5th Nov 2014 20:04 UTC in reply to "Complexity"
Sully
Member since:
2014-11-05

My opinion is that this is way too complex for an init system; for me to use something like this I'd want to see less than, say 6 (arbitrary!) c source files each with less than 2k lines of code and probably a dependency to libevent and imsg for a small privsep state machine. Then you'd at least know what you're getting into.

Even then, the small collection of sh (not bash) scripts that starts my handful of daemons is just immensely preferable for me.


It's often the BSD people that get it.

Edited 2014-11-05 20:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2