3 ms·

>Honestly, SMF is superior to SystemD Maybe 15 years ago, not by a mile now. systemd surpassed SMF years ago and it's not even close now. No one in their right

>Honestly, SMF is superior to SystemD Maybe 15 years ago, not by a mile now. systemd surpassed SMF years ago and it's not even close now. No one in their right mind would pick SMF over systemd in 2024.

cthalupa 2y ago
I regularly pick significantly less featured init systems over systemd whenever it is feasible, because systemd and it's related components have caused some of the largest amounts of work for me over the past decade. I don't really want to litigate the systemd vs. everything else argument, but as someone that has issues with systemd but is not particularly in love with sysvinit derivatives, I wouldn't mind SMF as an alternative.
dijit 2y ago
The fact that its less opinionated about logging and networking and doesnt ever force any reload of itself are all reasonable reasons to prefer it. You don’t lose socket activation or supervison. SMF is designed to help work in the event of hardware failure too, which systemd definitely cant handle.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >The fact that its less opinionated about logging It's simple and straightforward to use any other logging or network configuration system you wish. >doesnt ever force any reload of itself are all reasonable reasons to prefer it. It doesn't force reload it self. >You don’t lose socket activation or supervison. You don't lose that in systemd either. >SMF is designed to help work in the event of hardware failure too So is systemd. >which systemd definitely cant handle. It definitely can handle that. One of systemd's core functions is handling hardware events.
  - dijit 2y ago
    The confidence here is breathtaking. Did AI write this? its completely incorrect.
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      >The confidence here is breathtaking Tends to happen when facts are on your side. >Did AI write this? "Everything I dislike is AI." >its completely incorrect. No it's not.
      - dijit 2y ago
        Yeah, it is. Systemctl reload, journald binary logging being forced on (is an opinion) and so on. Blisteringly fucking moronic that you double down. “not losing socket activation” was a reference to the fact that systemd actually gives you that.
        anonfordays 2y ago
        >Yeah, it is. No, it isn't >Systemctl reload Yes, that is a feature. >journald binary logging being forced on Again, no one is forcing you to use that, this is old FUD. >Blisteringly fucking moronic Ad hominem means I'm right and you can't handle it. >that you double down. Yes, the facts haven't changed, I double down on the facts. >“not losing socket activation” was a reference to the fact that systemd actually gives you that. Good feature.

cthalupa 2y ago

I regularly pick significantly less featured init systems over systemd whenever it is feasible, because systemd and it's related components have caused some of the largest amounts of work for me over the past decade. I don't really want to litigate the systemd vs. everything else argument, but as someone that has issues with systemd but is not particularly in love with sysvinit derivatives, I wouldn't mind SMF as an alternative.

dijit 2y ago

The fact that its less opinionated about logging and networking and doesnt ever force any reload of itself are all reasonable reasons to prefer it. You don’t lose socket activation or supervison. SMF is designed to help work in the event of hardware failure too, which systemd definitely cant handle.

anonfordays 2y ago
>The fact that its less opinionated about logging It's simple and straightforward to use any other logging or network configuration system you wish. >doesnt ever force any reload of itself are all reasonable reasons to prefer it. It doesn't force reload it self. >You don’t lose socket activation or supervison. You don't lose that in systemd either. >SMF is designed to help work in the event of hardware failure too So is systemd. >which systemd definitely cant handle. It definitely can handle that. One of systemd's core functions is handling hardware events.
- dijit 2y ago
  The confidence here is breathtaking. Did AI write this? its completely incorrect.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >The confidence here is breathtaking Tends to happen when facts are on your side. >Did AI write this? "Everything I dislike is AI." >its completely incorrect. No it's not.
    - dijit 2y ago
      Yeah, it is. Systemctl reload, journald binary logging being forced on (is an opinion) and so on. Blisteringly fucking moronic that you double down. “not losing socket activation” was a reference to the fact that systemd actually gives you that.
      - anonfordays 2y ago
        >Yeah, it is. No, it isn't >Systemctl reload Yes, that is a feature. >journald binary logging being forced on Again, no one is forcing you to use that, this is old FUD. >Blisteringly fucking moronic Ad hominem means I'm right and you can't handle it. >that you double down. Yes, the facts haven't changed, I double down on the facts. >“not losing socket activation” was a reference to the fact that systemd actually gives you that. Good feature.