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 599202
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It isn't about choice
by hobgoblin on Thu 6th Nov 2014 18:52 UTC in reply to "It isn't about choice"
Member since:

Err, no.

Many of those came before systemd, and did what systemd does at its core (async daemon startup).

Some of them can either be init or run on top of init.

Btw. What we call init does not have to be sysv init.

Slackware use BSD init, and Gobolinux use bootscripts that it on top of the syv init binary.

The likely reason for sysv to live on was that it already booted fast enough for most, and it was easy enough to grok and debug.

Edited 2014-11-06 18:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3