3 ms·
> I totally agree with Lennart on this one. There's a certain rich irony that Lennart is being flogged for following the Unix tradition (root can do anything,
by rodgerd 11y ago
> I totally agree with Lennart on this one.
There's a certain rich irony that Lennart is being flogged for following the Unix tradition (root can do anything, including blow up their monitor with bad X configs); that his detractors are suggesting userland tools manage their hardware (normally the job of the kernel in a Unix system); that systemd ought to be expanded to manage hardware (after years of complaining it's too big), presumably by adding whitelisting capabilities and a database of known-good/known-bad UEFI implementations.
I guess at least it demonstrates how utterly unhinged some people become when his name is attached to anything.
- dozzie 11y ago> I guess at least it demonstrates how utterly unhinged some people become when his name is attached to anything. He earned it with his hard work with the Linux community.
- sztanpet 11y agoBy propelling linux process supervision into the 21th century, change is scary
- dozzie 11y agoNo. That one earned him adoption of his init.
- datenwolf 11y agoActually Lennart working for RedHat is what gave systemd serious traction. If it came to 21st century software, there are numerous modern init systems around (dependency driven, fast) that largely predate systemd. If any of those systems had been widely adopted by now it would be probably far ahead of systemd in feature set. OpenRC is what got closest to be the replacement SysV-Init, just by its qualities and market share. But other, nicer systems exist, but they never found wide adoption because the main distributions didn't let go of SysV. Now Lennart claims all the bragging rights, but people who used modern init systems before it was cool know better (there are a lot of Lennart opponents among those, BTW).