| 1 |
On Monday, 11 November 2019 11:54:31 GMT Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:38 AM Wols Lists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Fact is, there are a lot of people out there who hate systemd because |
| 5 |
> > it's been successful, and it's been successful because it sticks to the |
| 6 |
> > nix philosophy of "do one thing, and do it well". |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Now, THAT is a semi-trollish comment if I ever saw one. :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, the major criticism *against* systemd has been that it has been designed |
| 11 |
in an orthogonal direction to the *nix philosophy. It tried from inception to |
| 12 |
do many things, building a monolithic stack primarily to facilitate quick and |
| 13 |
easy spinning of linux deployment in cloud technologies. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> That said, you could argue that the individual components of systemd |
| 17 |
> do generally do one thing well. I think the criticism is more in the |
| 18 |
> packaging, and that the components mostly don't interchange with |
| 19 |
> anything non-systemd. Though as we can see from eudev/elogind and so |
| 20 |
> on that isn't strictly the case. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I sometimes describe systemd as the anti-busybox. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well, some systemd components can be taken as single applications and used |
| 25 |
separately from the whole systemd stack, that much is true. However, (some) |
| 26 |
systemd devs are known for for being disrespectful towards the rest of the |
| 27 |
Linux ecosystem and making architectural decisions which break |
| 28 |
interoperability. systemd has been gradually taking over more and more |
| 29 |
functions/services which reminds me of the old emacs joke: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
"... emacs is a fine operating system, in need of a good editor" |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> But, I don't want to derail the thread entirely... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Sorry, I couldn't resist contributing! :-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Regards, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Mick |
Archives