4 ms·
> […] if there's an optimal solution to the OOM problem, I would prefer that all distros use it. Except with the monoculture of systemd how can experiments be
by throw0101a 6y ago
> […] if there's an optimal solution to the OOM problem, I would prefer that all distros use it.
Except with the monoculture of systemd how can experiments be done with other approaches? Nowadays it seems like "use systemd or GTFO".
> Just like you can mostly expect filesystem behavior to be consistent […]
And how many file systems does the Linux support? One can try an approach and see how it works and others can perhaps copy it.
How does another approach towards OOM (or anything else in the kitchen sink that systemd handles) get traction when the 800lb/400kg of RH/IBM is bankrolling The One True Way™.
- Nextgrid 6y ago> Except with the monoculture of systemd how can experiments be done with other approaches? Nowadays it seems like "use systemd or GTFO". Is that much different from let's say databases, where "One True Way" was SQL and despite that NoSQL became a thing and is appropriate for some use-cases? > And how many file systems does the Linux support? And yet ext4 appears to be the most widespread though. It's true that there are other options such as XFS, ZFS and BTRFS but in general, ext4 is a safe default that works well enough for most use cases unless you have specific reasons to choose otherwise. Is it that far-fetched to believe that systemd might be the same, and it works "well enough" to be the default and even be bankrolled by some big names? > How does another approach towards OOM [...] get traction Presumably the systemd OOM killer can be disabled and something else put in its place if you so desire, just like you can still build or use a distro without systemd or selectively disabling its "bad" parts such as the journal, etc?