-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 12:06:19AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 04/07/2017 08:19 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > >[snip] > >>Why no one looks at their project and sees the people > >>involved when making a statistic up for the amount of dissatisfied > >>systemd users I don't know. > > > >That's an argument for another day. > > Back when the systemd FLAME WAR was prominent, I followed a link to > a justification link written by someone on the systemd development > team.
It's much, much more complicated than that. Note that UNIX systems have been decidedly multi-user, even long before the SysV init (considerer "old" these days) even existed. So we always had multi-user: the trend is rather the other way: since everyone has his/her own gadget, complex things like desktop environments tend to do silly things spoiling the multi-user roots of UNIX. There was another widespread init (BSD), which still has its places, and which (ironically) brought things to the table which were given up by SysV (namely process monitoring). What SysV brought was some kind of modularity: you had one file per "package" instead of having one huge file you had to edit each time you changed a package. But it paid a price for that, and it could have been done much better. Personally I find SysV ugly, but in ways which could be made better. What systemd brings (mainly[1]) to the table is the decoupling of different "parts" of init: just imagine you have one service (let's say a web server) which depends on some other thing (say a file system being present via ummm... NFS, but it could be a RAID or a memory stick, you get the idea). With a SysV init you can't express that: you would have to script it explicitly. With systemd you can express that the web server is only to be started once that file system appears. So I'd rather say systemd is an adaptation to a much more volatile hardware landscape (which previously was only known in big iron) comming to the masses these days (just think USB). It corresponds to a more "dynamic" configuration. There are, of course alternative ways to skin the cat. Note that I'm a decided systemd opponent, and that might shine through the above. Feel free to correct any misrepresentation. regards [1] Yeah: a "declarative" configuration, which may be considered as a plus (less obscure side effects) or as a minus (stronger separation between "priests" and "mortals"). - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAljojh8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbEXwCfXyu9yeq6p9N1jrPJXqB+si+M RTEAn2cNEzBfh5h2V57FqZj4tOaap+Ix =7wUU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
