3 ms·
Because it’s way better than what we had before. SystemD doesn’t care to be portable so it can expose a ton of nice Linux specifics and it centralizes a ton of
by flatiron 7y ago
Because it’s way better than what we had before. SystemD doesn’t care to be portable so it can expose a ton of nice Linux specifics and it centralizes a ton of stuff that was all over the place previously. I understand people hate it just consuming functionality one by one as it grows but from an end user perspective it’s been helpful.
- asveikau 7y agoThe "not portable" thing is actually such a weird point. Every other non-linux OS had its own pid 1, none of them identical to the sysvinit package formerly used by Linux distros. (though some of them quite similar) So I don't think you could really claim the thing systemd replaces needed to support the BSDs or anything. Because it did not. In some cases you might reuse rc.d scripts across multiple OSs... But rc.d itself was not "a thing" everywhere.
- gmueckl 7y agoIt is not a weird point because systemd imposes the use of non-standard interfaces on daemons to be regarded as good citizens of the systemd OS. So porting daemons that do this to another Unix becomes significantly more than locating and fixing a few edge cases that are handled differently.
- asveikau 7y agoI suppose that's true. I was saying gp's point that portability was a burden was weird. As if anyone who touched sysvinit was cursing at themselves in fury because they needed to support BSD (which doesn't use it).