3 ms·

>Because most people against systemd will keep saying that the old init system was ok, ... There isn't and wasn't hardly anyone saying that. It is and was well

>Because most people against systemd will keep saying that the old init system was ok, ... There isn't and wasn't hardly anyone saying that. It is and was well known that there were better things out there than the hacked up sysV style init systems produced by the various Linux distributions. This is a common strawman that seems to get rolled out any time any discussion involves systemd.

antirez 8y ago
A few of the authors of one of the Debian based distributions dropping systemd are friends of mine and all of them see things in that way, that the good old init is fine and there is no need to replace it. In the Facebook group where they use to stay the others I don't know first-hand seem to share this POV.
nickik 8y ago
And yet basically no alternative to systemd was produced by any of those people.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  Does upstart not count as an alternative?
  - loeg 8y ago
    Is upstart better in any way?
    - sliken 8y ago
      Upstart doesn't include implementations on NTP, DNS, DHCP, or anything that opens a network port. It does however allow parallel boots with dependency analysis for quick boots. Systemd on the other hand seems to be trying to take over syslog, ntpd, dhcpd, named, and related with generally poorer implementations. Feature creep seems constant with systemd, for no particularly good reason.
  - nickik 8y ago
    Upstart is older then systemd and it was mainly developed by Ubuntu who dropped it. After that is continued to exist as a project but its basically not used anywhere and id didn't continue to develop all that much.
    - bluejekyll 8y ago
      I didn't mean to imply that it was built as a competitor to systemd, more that it exists as a different alternative. I'm aware of what happened with Ubuntu dropping it, and I think it's a shame, as I like it as a simple response to the problem.
joepie91_ 8y ago
Nearly every systemd-disliking person I've personally spoken to, has trotted out that exact line about sysV init being fine. It's not just a strawman, unfortunately. I wish it were.

antirez 8y ago

A few of the authors of one of the Debian based distributions dropping systemd are friends of mine and all of them see things in that way, that the good old init is fine and there is no need to replace it. In the Facebook group where they use to stay the others I don't know first-hand seem to share this POV.

nickik 8y ago

And yet basically no alternative to systemd was produced by any of those people.

bluejekyll 8y ago
Does upstart not count as an alternative?
- loeg 8y ago
  Is upstart better in any way?
  - sliken 8y ago
    Upstart doesn't include implementations on NTP, DNS, DHCP, or anything that opens a network port. It does however allow parallel boots with dependency analysis for quick boots. Systemd on the other hand seems to be trying to take over syslog, ntpd, dhcpd, named, and related with generally poorer implementations. Feature creep seems constant with systemd, for no particularly good reason.
- nickik 8y ago
  Upstart is older then systemd and it was mainly developed by Ubuntu who dropped it. After that is continued to exist as a project but its basically not used anywhere and id didn't continue to develop all that much.
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    I didn't mean to imply that it was built as a competitor to systemd, more that it exists as a different alternative. I'm aware of what happened with Ubuntu dropping it, and I think it's a shame, as I like it as a simple response to the problem.

joepie91_ 8y ago

Nearly every systemd-disliking person I've personally spoken to, has trotted out that exact line about sysV init being fine. It's not just a strawman, unfortunately. I wish it were.