3 ms·
> systemd was necessary. In fact, Solaris did it first in the form of SMF. Apple's Unix variant seems fine without it though ... Of course macOS uses launchd [
by wsc981 4y ago
> systemd was necessary. In fact, Solaris did it first in the form of SMF.
Apple's Unix variant seems fine without it though ... Of course macOS uses launchd [0] which I guess is somewhat similar. And if I am not mistaken it's released under a permissive license.
Perhaps Linux could benefit from using launchd instead of systemd?
---
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd
- sanxiyn 4y agomacOS includes launchd, because it is in fact necessary.
- robertlagrant 4y agoThis doesn't make sense to me, twice: 1) the presence of launchd doesn't make systemd necessary 2) the previous absence of anything like systemd on Linux distros means I don't know what you mean by "necessary"
- patrakov 4y ago> Of course macOS uses launchd [0] which I guess is somewhat similar. It isn't. Systemd has dependencies and many directives to express them. Launchd doesn't, and instead demands that every service either waits for its dependencies by itself or crashes deliberately if they are not met - so the autorestart by means of its brute force eventually brings the system fully up.
- marcthe12 4y agoSystemd started as a launchd clone actually.