4 ms·

systemd fundamentally made a branding mistake, not a technical one. Putting all of these components under one 'systemd' umbrella name meant that people simplist

systemd fundamentally made a branding mistake, not a technical one. Putting all of these components under one 'systemd' umbrella name meant that people simplistically think of them as one thing and then start making the 'Unix philosophy' argument.

op00to 5y ago
Moving the goalposts yet again. Not only must it be technically superior for everyone, not only must it adhere to decades old computing dogma, but now it must be branded in such a way that it’s individual components must be unidentifiable?
dralley 5y ago
We're in a thread about OpenBSD, a Unix that keeps literally the entire OS (except for ports) in one repo, and ships them together. So this is a strange criticism to make.
- csande17 5y ago
  You're right that Linux is pretty much the only operating system where users can mix and match core system components. That's precisely why people get so mad about systemd! If I wanted to use an operating system where all the components were tightly coupled and made by a single vendor, I'd use Windows, or macOS, or a BSD. (In fact I do use those operating systems when that's what I want.) But I would also like for other kinds of systems to exist in the world. I downloaded Linux because I wanted to use an operating system that _wasn't_ macOS!
  - dralley 5y ago
    They are free to make that criticism but they should do it without invoking "the Unix philosophy" which Linux has never adhered to. Unix never had interchangable components like that.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Specially because "the Unix philosophy" as preached by Linux afficionados never happened in real UNIX, it keeps being preached as some kind of cargo cult by people that weren't even around during the UNIX wars heyday.
j0057 5y ago
Because it all lives in one repo, some distros make the choice of packaging all of systemd into one package, so that you can't choose to not install timesyncd or networkd.
- bonzini 5y ago
  You can choose not to use them though. RHEL uses neither of those two, for example.

op00to 5y ago

Moving the goalposts yet again. Not only must it be technically superior for everyone, not only must it adhere to decades old computing dogma, but now it must be branded in such a way that it’s individual components must be unidentifiable?

dralley 5y ago

We're in a thread about OpenBSD, a Unix that keeps literally the entire OS (except for ports) in one repo, and ships them together. So this is a strange criticism to make.

csande17 5y ago
You're right that Linux is pretty much the only operating system where users can mix and match core system components. That's precisely why people get so mad about systemd! If I wanted to use an operating system where all the components were tightly coupled and made by a single vendor, I'd use Windows, or macOS, or a BSD. (In fact I do use those operating systems when that's what I want.) But I would also like for other kinds of systems to exist in the world. I downloaded Linux because I wanted to use an operating system that _wasn't_ macOS!
- dralley 5y ago
  They are free to make that criticism but they should do it without invoking "the Unix philosophy" which Linux has never adhered to. Unix never had interchangable components like that.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Specially because "the Unix philosophy" as preached by Linux afficionados never happened in real UNIX, it keeps being preached as some kind of cargo cult by people that weren't even around during the UNIX wars heyday.

j0057 5y ago

Because it all lives in one repo, some distros make the choice of packaging all of systemd into one package, so that you can't choose to not install timesyncd or networkd.

bonzini 5y ago
You can choose not to use them though. RHEL uses neither of those two, for example.