4 ms·

> been too forceful on this subject I also read your replies in the post about devuan. Had the feeling half the posts where yours :) so you are a tad bit evang

by wila 10y ago

> been too forceful on this subject I also read your replies in the post about devuan. Had the feeling half the posts where yours :) so you are a tad bit evangelic on the subject. The thing is that devuan is about a debian without systemd and there you came out defending systemd. Not exactly the best spot to do so, I'd say. If anything, then devuan points out how difficult it was to get a current version of debian "systemd free" in this day and age. Systemd made me look at BSD again, so quite happy with systemd, but for other reasons as you.

chris_wot 10y ago
I've never been critical of devuan, only what I consider unfounded accusations against systemd. But yeah, I probably went a bit overboard! Would have been better if I had written a blog post I guess. If someone chooses SysV init, I'm not at all concerned, it's a different way of running a system and very effective. I was very happy with it over the years! My main issues are the following oft repeated claims: 1. systemd is monolithic and breaks the Unix philosophy of do one thing and do it well. It's not modular. 2. systemd is hard to configure 3. systemd breaks logging and forces the sysadmin to use binary formats 4. systemd uses binary configurations/is a binary blob/is undocumented 5. systemd has 70 binaries, each horribly intertwined As an example, I read a post the other day that stated that the binary log file format is deliberately undocumented [1], but the format has been documented since at least 2013... [2] The amount of misconceptions and wilful mischaracterisations if systemd really rankles me. There are issues, like some of the library linkages aren't great, but the objections given against systemd are normally technically incorrect and often what is written is so bile laden that if you took out the opinion the material would leave a paragraph worth of material... Which is why, IMO, when Debian used their robust processes to technically decide on moving to systemd it was chosen on technical grounds and not religious ones. Which tends to prove, at least in my mind, that Debian remains a very strong project :-) 1. http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ 2. https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/systemd/journal-files.mdwn?id=3f6894419fb73f09ec0ed7524e352de08e71ec0d https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/syst...

by wila 10y ago

chris_wot 10y ago

I've never been critical of devuan, only what I consider unfounded accusations against systemd. But yeah, I probably went a bit overboard! Would have been better if I had written a blog post I guess. If someone chooses SysV init, I'm not at all concerned, it's a different way of running a system and very effective. I was very happy with it over the years! My main issues are the following oft repeated claims: 1. systemd is monolithic and breaks the Unix philosophy of do one thing and do it well. It's not modular. 2. systemd is hard to configure 3. systemd breaks logging and forces the sysadmin to use binary formats 4. systemd uses binary configurations/is a binary blob/is undocumented 5. systemd has 70 binaries, each horribly intertwined As an example, I read a post the other day that stated that the binary log file format is deliberately undocumented [1], but the format has been documented since at least 2013... [2] The amount of misconceptions and wilful mischaracterisations if systemd really rankles me. There are issues, like some of the library linkages aren't great, but the objections given against systemd are normally technically incorrect and often what is written is so bile laden that if you took out the opinion the material would leave a paragraph worth of material... Which is why, IMO, when Debian used their robust processes to technically decide on moving to systemd it was chosen on technical grounds and not religious ones. Which tends to prove, at least in my mind, that Debian remains a very strong project :-) 1. http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ 2. https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/systemd/journal-files.mdwn?id=3f6894419fb73f09ec0ed7524e352de08e71ec0d https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/syst...