3 ms·

You don't provide any argument. 'It runs on my machines' is akin to 'it runs on my laptop'. Previous system was working, battle tested, was _not_ broken, was no

You don't provide any argument. 'It runs on my machines' is akin to 'it runs on my laptop'. Previous system was working, battle tested, was _not_ broken, was not polluting user space. And these are just a few arguments fished from above and other commends here. Now - to defend the new system which will have to prove it's value and stability in the next 20 years or so- what good is it? What awesomeness brings to the table?

gpvos 10y ago
Maybe the previous init system was not quite broken, but it had massive drawbacks, and it was not for nothing that many alternatives have sprung up in the last 10-15 years. But most of those tried to limit their scope, while the current winner unfortunately doesn't. From the little I know, socket activation seems to be systemd's main attractive item.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  The main issue is that the amount of stuff that systemd does, and the level of integration all the various parts of systemd have with each other across undocumented or unstable APIs, means that it becomes more and more difficult to replace any of it over time - we're tied to systemd as the one true system management suite until somebody can replace all of it, it's very difficult (and decidedly unsupported) to replace it piecemeal.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    In fact, the only reason systemd can do what it does is because those other systems were modular.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      And thus if the tradeoff is worth it for you, then you should be free to use it. But do not foist it on the rest of us.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
what annoys me is for all these changes linux still can't get a proper, graphical, flicker free boot sequence.
- snaky 10y ago
  Patches are welcome