4 ms·

> Hilariously, OpenBSD is closer to systemd in its philosophy than anything else ... Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong. > ... one umbrella projec

> Hilariously, OpenBSD is closer to systemd in its philosophy than anything else ... Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong. > ... one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS, often depending on each other. Systemd is not the OS. Full stop.

growse 7y ago
> Systemd is not the OS. Full stop. Do you mean the project, or the unit system? I'd argue an init system is very much a key part of the operating system, as important as the kernel. You can't really do much without one. If you mean the project, then you've missed the point.
Izkata 7y ago
> Systemd is not the OS. Certainly seems to want to become it.
- AdieuToLogic 7y ago
  > > Systemd is not the OS. > Certainly seems to want to become it. touché
kuschku 7y ago
> Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong. Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project.
- AdieuToLogic 7y ago
  > > > Hilariously, OpenBSD is closer to systemd in its philosophy than anything else ... > > Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong. Note that you originally asserted: one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS And I responded with what I feel confident is a statement of fact: Systemd is not the OS. > Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project. The examples you provide are umbrella projects, no doubt, but none are Operating Systems. Neither is systemd. While the term "OpenBSD" can be used in the context of a distribution (common), OS (common), and the tools used to initialize same (uncommon), systemd only qualifies for the latter.

growse 7y ago

> Systemd is not the OS. Full stop. Do you mean the project, or the unit system? I'd argue an init system is very much a key part of the operating system, as important as the kernel. You can't really do much without one. If you mean the project, then you've missed the point.

Izkata 7y ago

> Systemd is not the OS. Certainly seems to want to become it.

AdieuToLogic 7y ago
> > Systemd is not the OS. > Certainly seems to want to become it. touché

kuschku 7y ago

> Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong. Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project.

AdieuToLogic 7y ago
> > > Hilariously, OpenBSD is closer to systemd in its philosophy than anything else ... > > Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong. Note that you originally asserted: one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS And I responded with what I feel confident is a statement of fact: Systemd is not the OS. > Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project. The examples you provide are umbrella projects, no doubt, but none are Operating Systems. Neither is systemd. While the term "OpenBSD" can be used in the context of a distribution (common), OS (common), and the tools used to initialize same (uncommon), systemd only qualifies for the latter.