4 ms·

First of all, Devuan wants to get rid of any and all systemd code. This includes for example libsystemd-daemon0, which is a tiny library that implements the sta

First of all, Devuan wants to get rid of any and all systemd code. This includes for example libsystemd-daemon0, which is a tiny library that implements the stable notification protocol and is a no-op on systems not running systemd. You can reimplement it yourself in pretty much any language, but lots of programs just link against the systemd library because it's easier and has no tangible downside, even for people not running systemd. Eliminating such dependencies isn't particulary hard but takes a lot of work. Likewise, the rest of the world has left SysV init scripts behind, so they have to write those too. The second reason is that systemd provides features for which there simply is no alternative. Desktop environments are entangled with logind, because it's the only software providing that functionality. Before logind they had a hard dependency on ConsoleKit, which was pretty much abandoned. Reimplementing all these features takes time.

arminiusreturns 6y ago
If you are referring to the lack tight coupling being the ability to remove journald, time sync, etc, then you are correct. I should have been more clear I was talking about systemd as a whole, and not just those other subsystems, but I'll assume you meant the latter, in which case, yeah, it's possible to stop using lots of the systemd subsystems without too much pain (which I have done quite frequently, and found great stability improvements.) To be frank, I just really don't like the handwaiving away of valid criticisms people have (on any topic), with such dismissive language as "People keep saying ... but never supply any proof for that." This to me reeks of intellectual dishonesty, but again, that was my response because I probably misunderstood you to say that about systemd as a whole instead of how you meant it which was focused on gp's comment about subsystems. One note: many people pretend sysv init has been dead and left behind, but I've seen production systems in major places still using it (not just embedded either). It's not nearly as dead as people might like to think.

arminiusreturns 6y ago

If you are referring to the lack tight coupling being the ability to remove journald, time sync, etc, then you are correct. I should have been more clear I was talking about systemd as a whole, and not just those other subsystems, but I'll assume you meant the latter, in which case, yeah, it's possible to stop using lots of the systemd subsystems without too much pain (which I have done quite frequently, and found great stability improvements.) To be frank, I just really don't like the handwaiving away of valid criticisms people have (on any topic), with such dismissive language as "People keep saying ... but never supply any proof for that." This to me reeks of intellectual dishonesty, but again, that was my response because I probably misunderstood you to say that about systemd as a whole instead of how you meant it which was focused on gp's comment about subsystems. One note: many people pretend sysv init has been dead and left behind, but I've seen production systems in major places still using it (not just embedded either). It's not nearly as dead as people might like to think.