4 ms·

> Systemd can do things that were not relevant 20 years ago. Yes, "horses for courses" as stated in the post you're replying to. I don't require systemd, but I

by johnr2 7y ago

> Systemd can do things that were not relevant 20 years ago. Yes, "horses for courses" as stated in the post you're replying to. I don't require systemd, but I have no problem with it existing for those who do need it. I do have a problem with the idea that something that works better for me should be removed merely because it's "old".

1_player 7y ago
And this is why improving anything on the Linux ecosystem is a nightmare. What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? It might have had a controversial history, but it’s here to stay. Just deal with it.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Because the Linux community is not made up of product managers. It's full of software developers each who thinks their way is the best. Distros, maintainers and users will always be fighting political battles.
- johnr2 7y ago
  > What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? If they're script based, they allow lower level troubleshooting and modification without having to recompile.
  - andrewshadura 7y ago
    That's an illusion. systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right, and it's capable of things very few script-based init systems are capable of, so in practice it's very rare that the code of the init system itself needs to be debugged. It's basically rock solid compared to sysv-rc.
    - johnr2 7y ago
      > systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right You might regard C as easier than shell to get right (that's debateable), but systemd has many many more lines of source code than sysvinit. Good luck debugging it at source code level on a remote system if that "very rare" event occurs.
  - Izkata 7y ago
    Even more massively to me, this was a very low barrier for entry for beginners who want to learn how everything works. It was a major point in favor of Ubuntu, coming from Windows, when I started experimenting bit over a decade ago. Going binary is like going back to Windows. If systemd was how Ubuntu worked 15 years ago, it's likely I wouldn't have seen the advantage and wouldn't have bothered switching.
- galangalalgol 7y ago
  I think the the controversy is the other way around, systemd does a lot of things the others didn't. People wanted all those responsibilitys modularized.
- bandrami 7y ago
  > What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? Skip an opaque spaghetti-code declarative-to-imperative compilation step that I have to debug at 3am.

by johnr2 7y ago

1_player 7y ago

And this is why improving anything on the Linux ecosystem is a nightmare. What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? It might have had a controversial history, but it’s here to stay. Just deal with it.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Because the Linux community is not made up of product managers. It's full of software developers each who thinks their way is the best. Distros, maintainers and users will always be fighting political battles.
johnr2 7y ago
> What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? If they're script based, they allow lower level troubleshooting and modification without having to recompile.
- andrewshadura 7y ago
  That's an illusion. systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right, and it's capable of things very few script-based init systems are capable of, so in practice it's very rare that the code of the init system itself needs to be debugged. It's basically rock solid compared to sysv-rc.
  - johnr2 7y ago
    > systemd is written in a language that is easier than shell to get right You might regard C as easier than shell to get right (that's debateable), but systemd has many many more lines of source code than sysvinit. Good luck debugging it at source code level on a remote system if that "very rare" event occurs.
- Izkata 7y ago
  Even more massively to me, this was a very low barrier for entry for beginners who want to learn how everything works. It was a major point in favor of Ubuntu, coming from Windows, when I started experimenting bit over a decade ago. Going binary is like going back to Windows. If systemd was how Ubuntu worked 15 years ago, it's likely I wouldn't have seen the advantage and wouldn't have bothered switching.
galangalalgol 7y ago
I think the the controversy is the other way around, systemd does a lot of things the others didn't. People wanted all those responsibilitys modularized.
bandrami 7y ago
> What do other init systems do that systemd doesn’t? Skip an opaque spaghetti-code declarative-to-imperative compilation step that I have to debug at 3am.