4 ms·
> But I am sure that future historians will view the impact of systemd on computing as largely negative. I don't really think so. They probably will point out
by dathinab 6y ago
> But I am sure that future historians will view the impact of systemd on computing as largely negative.
I don't really think so. They probably will point out a lot problems with at some point somehow got fixed but it should be net-neutral or positive.
The thing is todays linux is running manny services and to do so nicely you want to have some form of service manager which does startup/shutdown/restart/circicute braking and helps with interconnect. Which is what systemd does and what mainly differentiates it from many previous systems which where mainly "just" start-up helpers. Through there are IMHO a large amount of problems with systemd the general approach is IMHO good, just the implementation isn't so much.
- regularfry 6y agoSorry, no. Systemd doesn't add anything for service management that didn't previously exist elsewhere other than the unit file syntax for service definition. What it did is pull as many disparate aspects of "how do you run a thing" under its umbrella as it could, so it controls as much of the environment as possible and doesn't have to care about playing nice with anyone else. That's the general approach. It's a logical fallacy to assume, because systemd was the thing that came along and resulted in the problems in sysv being fixed, that systemd's approach or implementation were necessary, desirable, or the best option available.