4 ms·

>Every time I read something complaining about systemd from a centralization/reducing-choices POV, I mentally replace the word "systemd" with "glibc" and check

>Every time I read something complaining about systemd from a centralization/reducing-choices POV, I mentally replace the word "systemd" with "glibc" and check to see if the argument still holds water. Actually, I replace systemd with *BSD. You know, the OS which has blessed core packages which are not replaceable?

petre 9y ago
Actually the BSDs with their non-replaceable core packages are a sane alternative to Linux w/ systemd.
- dijit 9y ago
  The difference is that in the BSDs (especially OpenBSD) a lot of care is taken to be configurable. Consistent. Clear and transparent. OpenBSD has the most extensive suite of tools built specifically for systems administrators that exists in a base system. SystemD has opaque behaviour and binary interfaces. It's the antithesis of the BSD model. Despite BSDs being quite coupled groupings of software. Anecdotally we're attempting to move to BSDs instead of upgrading to RHEL7 due to SystemD.
  - justinclift 9y ago
    One gotcha (for me) with BSD is that I'm developing on Golang. It doesn't really debug well on anything other than Linux... so had to move to that for development. ... and for deployment, the Golang debugger doesn't even run on BSD at this point. So, going to have to setup new Linux (likely CentOS 6 - no systemd - or 7) boxes soon now that we're getting closer to first initial real world deployment for the project I'm on.
- greenhouse_gas 9y ago
  I'm not comparing code quality. I never looked at either and therefore can't comment on that. It's just the "UNIX is supposed to be decoupled" line that gets repeated every time systemd comes up that BSD (which, ironically, those people want to switch to) disproves.
JdeBP 9y ago
As the author of a toolset that can replace parts of Base such as init, van Mewburn rc, and service with its own system, service, terminal, and logging management, I point out that "not replaceable" is not exactly true. * http://jdebp.eu./Softwares/nosh/ http://jdebp.eu./Softwares/nosh/

petre 9y ago

Actually the BSDs with their non-replaceable core packages are a sane alternative to Linux w/ systemd.

dijit 9y ago
The difference is that in the BSDs (especially OpenBSD) a lot of care is taken to be configurable. Consistent. Clear and transparent. OpenBSD has the most extensive suite of tools built specifically for systems administrators that exists in a base system. SystemD has opaque behaviour and binary interfaces. It's the antithesis of the BSD model. Despite BSDs being quite coupled groupings of software. Anecdotally we're attempting to move to BSDs instead of upgrading to RHEL7 due to SystemD.
- justinclift 9y ago
  One gotcha (for me) with BSD is that I'm developing on Golang. It doesn't really debug well on anything other than Linux... so had to move to that for development. ... and for deployment, the Golang debugger doesn't even run on BSD at this point. So, going to have to setup new Linux (likely CentOS 6 - no systemd - or 7) boxes soon now that we're getting closer to first initial real world deployment for the project I'm on.
greenhouse_gas 9y ago
I'm not comparing code quality. I never looked at either and therefore can't comment on that. It's just the "UNIX is supposed to be decoupled" line that gets repeated every time systemd comes up that BSD (which, ironically, those people want to switch to) disproves.

JdeBP 9y ago

As the author of a toolset that can replace parts of Base such as init, van Mewburn rc, and service with its own system, service, terminal, and logging management, I point out that "not replaceable" is not exactly true. * http://jdebp.eu./Softwares/nosh/ http://jdebp.eu./Softwares/nosh/