3 ms·

Systemd is not widely adopted at all, only a handful of distros adopted it. That's like a few friends level of adoption. And adoption of something by a small gr

Systemd is not widely adopted at all, only a handful of distros adopted it. That's like a few friends level of adoption. And adoption of something by a small group of people doesn't imply that it's a good or a bad thing. But it does suggest that this group shares something that influences their decision making. Users of those distros did not adopt systemd, they were forced to deal with distros that adopted systemd after upgrades. Just like they were forced to deal with new gnome and wayland. All of this is not without consequences of course. There are forks, brokenness, fragmentation, fatigue and general unattractiveness of linux desktop. Ecosystem is in a very sad state. I hope it's not on purpose, but it's definitely possible there is some "extend extinguish" strategy at play too.

Quekid5 8y ago
To me this is a bizarre line of reasoning. I was "forced" to adopt systemd, but so far it's been leagues better than previous attempts (OpenRC, sysvinit) for integrated management of daemons, user-session daemons, a predictable way to access logs of a daemon ("systemctl -u postgresl", for example) without having to guess what it's log file name (if it even has one or logs into the syslog, etc.), etc. Painting this as some sort of nefarious "extend extinguish" strategy is just tin foil hattery. (Yes, there are still bugs, etc., but they will get fixed and the whole ecosystem will benefit. The security problems discussed ITT seem to stem more from the use of an unsafe language rather than design issues, per se.)