> From a technical point of view (the quality of the code and the time > it takes to fix bugs), I believe everyone (even Lennart's most fervent > detractors) will agree that systemd is a superb piece of software. The > problem is the philosophy behind it; if you agree with said > philosophy, systemd is great. Otherwise, is a new fangled beast which > goes against everything that UNIX stands for (whatever that means), "a > solution for a problem no one has", and "fixing something that wasn't > broken". >
I won't start this up again, there is lots of info out there. LWN and this lists archives maybe reasonable for some for and against arguments. This post is as bad as Lennarts myth busting post which avoided all the real issues and skirted around the ones he did mention. The real drive behind systemd is enterprise cloud type computing for Red Hat. The rest is snake oil and much of the features already exist without systemd. With more snake oil of promises of faster boot up on a portion of the code which is already fast and gains you maybe two seconds. > 3. "is openrc just a dead project is that why?" > Not even close, systemd is one of the least used init systems. The question you should ask yourself is why would anyone talk about the fact they are using OpenRC. Having said that I do hate all the symlinking rubbish many linux (not OpenRC) uses but would bear it over systemds technical flaws. So there you have it complete contradictions which mean you should make up your own mind, even if it is easier for the more advanced arguments against it to be overlooked. > Is not dead; it has new releases and stuff. Just not many features are > implemented to it, and it has some pretty awkward bugs, some of them > years old, like not being able to start services in parallel. > There is arguably more weight to the argument of an init system that does parallel starting being a bug. What do you gain, speed? and complexity, what do you lose reliability and predictability. If you cause disk churn it *may* even be slower too such as windows tools that stage autostarts. Do one thing and do it well and you are more likely to make it into every Unix-like OS for good not so obvious reasons. I hope this doesn't start into another discusssion just know that there are many arguments badly represented by Canek to research if you want your answer. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
