3 ms·

> Systemd continues to remind me of windows. How is it anything like Windows? You're honestly, without bad faith, comparing it to a closed source operating sys

by hnarn 6y ago

> Systemd continues to remind me of windows. How is it anything like Windows? You're honestly, without bad faith, comparing it to a closed source operating systems that has telemetry enabled by default and forces you to run system updates? I have no idea what systemd-oomd is, but from a cursory reading of the article I can tell that it's a .service, and from the description that it's a "userspace out-of-memory (OOM) killer". So either this service will (worst-case) be enabled by default, in which case I presume that you can disable it or mask it completely like any service, or (best-case) it will be disabled by default, in which case I really don't understand why it matters. In addition to systemd fully allowing you to disable and re-configure much of its functionality, it's also fully open source. You can re-build it however you want, if you want to use it in another manner. This is what passes for being reminiscent of Windows?

anotherhue 6y ago
With windows, (and I suggest systemd) you're either all in or all out. And as the scope continues to increase, you're still either all in or all out. As the distros fall into line, you're either all in or all out. Try and not use systemd, and then tell me it's not a problem. I think it's honestly easier to not use windows at this stage. The BSDs (love them as I do) just don't have the clout or the support for many day to day developer needs.
- galgalesh 6y ago
  > With windows, (and I suggest systemd) you're either all in or all out. This is not the case with systemd. Although these projects live in the same repository, distributions can pick and choose them depending on your priorities. Granted, this is obviously not something most end users come in contact with and even know since very few people actually build distributions. As an end user, ripping out a core part of a distro to replace it is always a painful experience. Regardless of whether that component lives in the systemd repo or somewhere else. Systemd actually makes ripping out core parts easier, which is why arch adopted it so quickly, but that's another story. You're just throwing vague and incorrect statements out there, sprinkle "Windows" on top in the hopes of eliciting an emotional response.

by hnarn 6y ago

anotherhue 6y ago

With windows, (and I suggest systemd) you're either all in or all out. And as the scope continues to increase, you're still either all in or all out. As the distros fall into line, you're either all in or all out. Try and not use systemd, and then tell me it's not a problem. I think it's honestly easier to not use windows at this stage. The BSDs (love them as I do) just don't have the clout or the support for many day to day developer needs.

galgalesh 6y ago
> With windows, (and I suggest systemd) you're either all in or all out. This is not the case with systemd. Although these projects live in the same repository, distributions can pick and choose them depending on your priorities. Granted, this is obviously not something most end users come in contact with and even know since very few people actually build distributions. As an end user, ripping out a core part of a distro to replace it is always a painful experience. Regardless of whether that component lives in the systemd repo or somewhere else. Systemd actually makes ripping out core parts easier, which is why arch adopted it so quickly, but that's another story. You're just throwing vague and incorrect statements out there, sprinkle "Windows" on top in the hopes of eliciting an emotional response.