3 ms·
I'd also be interested. I kinda like systemd as far as I've tried it, but as you say, the discussion around it is just inane. I'm sure there are valid complaint
by throwaway7767 11y ago
I'd also be interested. I kinda like systemd as far as I've tried it, but as you say, the discussion around it is just inane. I'm sure there are valid complaints buried in there, and you seem to be a reasonable sort about these things.
There are other pages out there claiming to be neutral overviews, but they generally just take a neutral tone while rehashing the same long-debunked myths and spreading FUD.
The specific thing I like about systemd is the init replacement. It's just so much better! Automatically tracking daemon child processes, even detached ones. Supporting all the different modes daemons work, so I don't need to write yet another damn clean-up-all-the-children function in a SysVinit script. It's wonderful.
But systemd is a lot more than an init system and I don't really have strongly formed opinions on those.
- JdeBP 11y agoYou should start by reading the stuff that xe has already written: * http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ * http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ Another persons writings to read, for similar reasons, is Ian Sutton, who is the bloke who did SystemBSD: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10176275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10176275
- jcranmer 11y agoThose don't cover the technical aspects, although to be fair, something like 70-90% of the systemd "debate" is about non-technical issues, like "the Unix philosophy" or "change for change's sake"--just read the comments here!
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoWell no, I've never written a central architectural critique of systemd, only scattered criticisms across comments. I will nonetheless be remedying that soon.