3 ms·
I see we've reached the point in any systemd-related debate where someone tries to claim systemd is bloated by listing off projects that are not part of the sys
by thenewnewguy 7y ago
I see we've reached the point in any systemd-related debate where someone tries to claim systemd is bloated by listing off projects that are not part of the systemd init system and just happen to share a common name and dev team.
- chongli 7y agoThe problem isn't the common name, it's the tight coupling between components. This is antithetical to the Linux philosophy, which emphasizes modularity, interchangeability, and configurability.
- cycloptic 7y agoThat is not the Linux philosophy. According to a usenet post made by Linus Torvalds in 1996 [0], the Linux philosophy is "Do it yourself." [0] https://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=Pine.LNX.3.91.961016155929.27735D-100000%40linux.cs.Helsinki.FI https://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=Pine.LNX.3.91.9610161...
- zzo38computer 7y agoWhen you wish to cite Usenet articles, please cite the message ID. (I also think that those who use mailing lists should just use NNTP instead, possibly having NNTP as an alternative interface to the same data.)
- teddyh 7y agoIn this case, the Message-ID seems to be <Pine.LNX.3.91.961016155929.27735D-100000@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI>.
- thenewnewguy 7y agoI assume you mean the UNIX philosophy? Regardless, almost all of said components are optional, systemd doesn't in any way force you to use them. As a matter of fact many of the components you listed have alternatives that are more popular than the systemd tool (NetworkManager over systemd-networkd, GRUB2 over systemd-boot, etc).
- despera 7y agoMost yes, not all of them. For example logind. Is there any reason why this should be coupled with systemd? Apparently not as has been proved by elogind project.