On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:31 PM, MohanR <mohan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:59 +0530, Narendiran wrote: >> Most of the people bashing systemd are people with very little >> technical information about the project. > > Nonsense!! It has its own design flaw. I'm against everything pid-1 > crap!! and merging udev with systemd is pure political just to make life > difficult for non systemd init systems.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said most people bashing it have very little technical information about the project. First of all, not everything is pid-1, definitely not on my pc. Secondly systemd is not one big monolithic software which swallows everything related to init system. Before systemd everything was a bunch of scripts mildly aware of each other. systemd in its present form is an umbrella project which aims to collect everything related to init system and couple them with well defined api. If you don't like something you can disable it and implement your version of it. All you have to do is implement the required api. While there are good arguments for and against systemd, many are simply not true anymore. Most of the arguments I have seen online boil down to these, "it breaks the way I have been doing it for the past 20 years", "Redhat is evil", "Its made by lennart poettering" etc. It is true that there was some corporate politics involved, things were especially nasty in the debian camp and caused a lot of broken hearts. But in the end systemd won not because of redhat's iron fist but due to its superiority. This site (http://boycottsystemd.org/) gives a list of points against systemd. A good discussion over the points both for and against can be found here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8353006) > But it doesn't mean it is not on par with other init systems. Infact, it > is the best when it comes to non-blocking parallel startup. upstart or > openrc can't compete with it. Then, there is systemd-nspawn which is one > hell of a replacement for any chroot implementation. It uses everything > kernel offers (pid namespaces, networking namespaces, cgroups) to make a > os level virtualization. > > Supporting multiple init systems for every upper layer components (GUI > Environments) is not just an easy task. Thats what debian package > maintainers would have felt and thats why they would have voted for > systemd. It is true, gnome requires logind as dependency. There are some discussions and explorations in KDE camp, but NO concrete decisions about systemd based sessions yet. We can only wait and see after KDE 5 settles down. For a fun/stupid storytelling on debian systemd case check this site(http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/jeu.php?id_proces=57684). > People just hate systemd because it does what a init system doesn't need > to do, like producing binary logs instead of text, not allowing your OS > to produce coredumps by default (I know how freebsd guy will say > "Seriously!!?? don't touch my /etc/rc.local or I'll kill you!!") > People hate systemd because it introduces too many radical changes, some people don't like change. -- A. Narendiran (The worst way to waste your time is to never waste it.) _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc ILUGC Mailing List Guidelines: http://ilugc.in/mailinglist-guidelines
