3 ms·

If systemd is so bad, then why did it get made and broadly adopted? It seems like critics of systemd might make more progress if they admitted that there is mo

If systemd is so bad, then why did it get made and broadly adopted? It seems like critics of systemd might make more progress if they admitted that there is more going on than an evil developer trying to sabotage everything good about Unix based systems.

JohnFen 7y ago
The reason that distros have adopted it is because it makes their job easier, and they don't have to worry too much about the cost to the larger Linux world.
p_l 7y ago
Despite short memory leading to white washing of systemd adoption history... Systemd hot big adoption jump through a single project that's been essentially controlled by Red Hat for years: GNOME. GNOME version 3.8 was broken if run without logind, which meant systemd. Officially the answer was that logind wasn't dependant on systemd. Unofficially the spec and docs were worse than MS' proprietary protocols, and most distro faced option between dropping GNOME or embracing systemd. Non Linux systems which were supported before were of course dropped totally. Canonical for short while tried to implement separate logind implementation - they gave up after short time. One OpenBSD developer spent years of time making GNOME post-3.8 usable without systemd again. Meanwhile, it was known for 2~3 years that RHEL 7 and CentOS 7 will use systemd. Essentially, Red Hat pulled an Embrace, Extend, Extinguish on other distro.
- dTal 7y ago
  Red Hat makes money when people pay them for support. The harder Linux is to use, the better for them. I think this goes a very long way towards explaining the current state of desktop Linux.
0xdeadb00f 7y ago
In Debian's case, wasn't it a decision by board members, and specifically not the community to add it as the default init? I heard that some people dislike it from a political stance, because the community didn't have a say.

3 ms·

If systemd is so bad, then why did it get made and broadly adopted? It seems like critics of systemd might make more progress if they admitted that there is mo

by m0llusk 7y ago

JohnFen 7y ago
The reason that distros have adopted it is because it makes their job easier, and they don't have to worry too much about the cost to the larger Linux world.
p_l 7y ago
Despite short memory leading to white washing of systemd adoption history... Systemd hot big adoption jump through a single project that's been essentially controlled by Red Hat for years: GNOME. GNOME version 3.8 was broken if run without logind, which meant systemd. Officially the answer was that logind wasn't dependant on systemd. Unofficially the spec and docs were worse than MS' proprietary protocols, and most distro faced option between dropping GNOME or embracing systemd. Non Linux systems which were supported before were of course dropped totally. Canonical for short while tried to implement separate logind implementation - they gave up after short time. One OpenBSD developer spent years of time making GNOME post-3.8 usable without systemd again. Meanwhile, it was known for 2~3 years that RHEL 7 and CentOS 7 will use systemd. Essentially, Red Hat pulled an Embrace, Extend, Extinguish on other distro.
- dTal 7y ago
  Red Hat makes money when people pay them for support. The harder Linux is to use, the better for them. I think this goes a very long way towards explaining the current state of desktop Linux.
0xdeadb00f 7y ago
In Debian's case, wasn't it a decision by board members, and specifically not the community to add it as the default init? I heard that some people dislike it from a political stance, because the community didn't have a say.