3 ms·
Ease of configuration and maintenance is the metric. I specifically addressed the question you asked - I would prefer that the different parts of the systemd s
by bscphil 7y ago
Ease of configuration and maintenance is the metric.
I specifically addressed the question you asked - I would prefer that the different parts of the systemd software suite be split into programs that can be installed and run (or not) as the user pleases. I'm happy to use systemd, however, because I like nearly every part of it.
- StreamBright 7y ago>> Ease of configuration and maintenance is the metric. This way provided with many alternatives before systemd. >> I would prefer that the different parts of the systemd software suite be split into programs that can be installed and run (or not) as the user pleases Are you contradicting yourself? You say you like all of it after just pointing out its biggest flaws why systems engineers loath it.
- bscphil 7y agoI'm not contradicting myself. I can like all the individual pieces of software that comprise systemd while still criticizing the architecture of the project as a whole. I would prefer that systemd be split into different projects. I would still use most of those projects. And I have to disagree with your claim that "systems engineers loath it". There doesn't seem to be overwhelming pushback against systemd from e.g. RedHat's customers. I use systemd myself on servers (I'm a sysadmin/dev for a very small software project - a part-time job), and I have few complaints about it.