4 ms·
It’s a system service manager, it being portable is not a requirement nor any benefit when BSD has nearly no traction in the desktop or server space other than
by PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
It’s a system service manager, it being portable is not a requirement nor any benefit when BSD has nearly no traction in the desktop or server space other than a few cases.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> it being portable is not a requirement nor any benefit when BSD has nearly no traction in the desktop or server space other than a few cases. Is your argument that portability is irrelevant because nothing but (systemd/)GNU/Linux matters, or that service manager in particular don't need to be portable?
- jmclnx 3y agoSome complex applications are starting to require systemd components. So yes, portability may become important to the BSDs.
- Gud 3y agoWhich applications?
- bmacho 3y agoGNOME since more than 10 years
- bandrami 3y agoGnome runs on OpenBSD so it clearly doesn't "require" systemd
- navi-desu 3y agognome hard depends on systemd, so much that for it, *bsd (and any non-systemd unix-like) had to write a systemd-shim to emulate some functions of it, and/or gut some of systemd's components such as logind in to elogind
- bandrami 3y agoNot for a while now; accountsservice runs fine with cosolekit. I still don't understand why the broader Linux ecosystem burned the better part of a decade on the long-solved problem of "who is logged in to this TTY?", but whatever floats their boat...
- lockhouse 3y agoBSD is used in a lot more than you think due to solid engineering and a non-viral commercial friendly license.