On Monday, 11 November 2019 11:54:31 GMT Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:38 AM Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> wrote: > > > Fact is, there are a lot of people out there who hate systemd because > > it's been successful, and it's been successful because it sticks to the > > nix philosophy of "do one thing, and do it well". > > Now, THAT is a semi-trollish comment if I ever saw one. :)
Well, the major criticism *against* systemd has been that it has been designed in an orthogonal direction to the *nix philosophy. It tried from inception to do many things, building a monolithic stack primarily to facilitate quick and easy spinning of linux deployment in cloud technologies. > That said, you could argue that the individual components of systemd > do generally do one thing well. I think the criticism is more in the > packaging, and that the components mostly don't interchange with > anything non-systemd. Though as we can see from eudev/elogind and so > on that isn't strictly the case. > > I sometimes describe systemd as the anti-busybox. Well, some systemd components can be taken as single applications and used separately from the whole systemd stack, that much is true. However, (some) systemd devs are known for for being disrespectful towards the rest of the Linux ecosystem and making architectural decisions which break interoperability. systemd has been gradually taking over more and more functions/services which reminds me of the old emacs joke: "... emacs is a fine operating system, in need of a good editor" > But, I don't want to derail the thread entirely... Sorry, I couldn't resist contributing! :-) -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
