3 ms·
The pro part is the massive simplification and security advantages systemd brings to plain and simple config files. Sure, I can reimplement the containerisation
by jeroenhd 1y ago
The pro part is the massive simplification and security advantages systemd brings to plain and simple config files. Sure, I can reimplement the containerisation API in OpenRC if I stack enough helper binaries and shell script libraries in there, but I don't want to. Kindly shove it up your ass and quit moving things around all the time just because you're board.
If it's good enough for most people, that means it's good enough to use as a basis for development. The same way no company develops mobile apps for Phosh or Plasma Mobile: the tiny fraction of people who have more esoteric preferences aren't worth rewriting the software stack for. Those who don't like the status quo can write their own wrappers and hacks if they want to use your software.
- adrian_b 1y agoIt is weird to name something as a "massive simplification" when saying that it is intended to replace "plain and simple config files". "Massive simplification" is a term that may be applied to something like the daemontools of Bernstein and to other systems inspired by it, but certainly not to anything based on systemd, where it is much harder to discover what it really does, when problems appear. Perhaps systemd has "security advantages" over alternative solutions, but I have never heard of them and I cannot imagine them, so please name them.