3 ms·
I'm quite annoyed by the bland statement in the introduction of this article: people make about it don’t stand up to much scrutiny, even the technical ones
by greatgib 2y ago
I'm quite annoyed by the bland statement in the introduction of this article:
people make about it don’t stand up to much scrutiny, even the technical ones
Basically the author says that everyone else has stupid rants that doesn't stand but himself has valid claims so that in the end we have a proof that there are a few valid technical rants!
That being said, the main problem with systemd from the beginning is that it is a cancer. It was explicitly designed to prevent as much as possible the modularity and intercompatibility. Kind of opposite to the POSIX way even I think.
Despite what is pretended, doing the things would probably not have impacted features, like boot speed but it was key for them to shove through our throat the usage of systemd in a "all or nothing" way.
And udev or logind are good example of that.
- reanimus 2y agoI think it's fair to say the majority of people don't really care about any of those things as much as having a system that just works -- which was part of their whole argument regarding why package maintainers love it so much and end users really don't tend to care.
- kytazo 2y agoI would assume people using Linux more or less care to an extend
- Vilian 2y agoAnd systemd replace all POSIX init system because they were all bad or systemd do the same thing better or faster, your point is a good argument against following POSIX religiously