4 ms·
Your sentiment is ridiculous. If Upstart, Mudur or name any of the other many init's were better or became better, distro maintainers would switch. They are som
by Alupis 3y ago
Your sentiment is ridiculous. If Upstart, Mudur or name any of the other many init's were better or became better, distro maintainers would switch. They are some of the most pragmatic people.
Politics did not insert systemd into all of your widely-used distros... merit did. Even if that merit isn't what you wanted for your niche requirements.
systemd came late to the next-gen init debate and ate everyone else's lunch.
Now, the bar is high to replace init's again - meaning the next init system will need to be a leap forward instead of marginal/niche improvements.
> I’m using systemd on a thousand machines every day
You are a niche user and have niche requirements. Understand that...
- b112 3y agoAbsurd. Systemd was adopted by redhat because it is their baby. And because redhat controls gnome, gnome created a hard depend upon systemd. Which is why the debian vote went te way it did. This is history. Systemd was not adopted due to merit.
- Alupis 3y ago> Systemd was adopted by redhat because it is their baby You mean after shipping Upstart in RHEL 6 and immediately regretting it? > And because redhat controls gnome, gnome created a hard depend upon systemd. This is some revisionist history right there. Red Hat contributes money to GNOME, along with a lot of other organizations. GNOME is not even close to being the only DE either... are you asserting some sort of evil conspiracy to adopt systemd for profit or something? That is absurd...
- simoncion 3y ago> ...are you asserting some sort of evil conspiracy to adopt systemd for profit or something? Why does it have to be an evil conspiracy? Corporations pay folks to work on these things. Based on my personal experience: Corporations have things like OKRs and performance reviews and the like. Managers in such companies (at all levels) tend to have a hard time understanding what their people work on and whether or not it was actually important and/or useful. This leads to managers getting seduced by things that are easy to fit stories to... Bold Mission Statements and Grand Visions. One great story is how you're "Revolutionizing Computing and Paving The Way To The Future With Cutting-Edge Technology". Another great story is how you're "Accelerating the Desktop Through Tighter Integration With Cutting Edge Components". Absent highly-clued-in managers who have enough slack time to figure out how useful the things you've been doing are, great stories get you more money, accolades and promotions than folks who don't have great stories. Simple as. No conspiracy needed. It's just a bunch of folks following "incentive gradients" that don't result in optimal outcomes for the unpaid folks who work on and/or use the product.
- IntelMiner 3y agoDebian did something because Red Hat did it? That's some tinfoil hat Olympics
- b112 3y agoOne of the primary reasons Debian even considered systemd, was because Redhat's control of the Gnome foundation, and thus Gnome's at the time requirement of systemd as an init, created a major conflict in terms of "do we drop gnome or not". If you want you can read the proposals, the mailing list discussions, the debates, the votes. There's nothing opaque or hidden here. If you haven't done so, then I suggest you do so, instead of disparaging someone who lived through the debates, read the list daily, and partook in the process.
- IntelMiner 3y agoSounds like instead of accepting the rationale you've concocted a "forced hand" narrative in order to outsource blame to a 3rd party How do you account for all the other distros that picked up systemd independently? Particularly the "community" distros like Arch or especially Gentoo