4 ms·
Its an argument about whether you want an init that is just an init, or an init that is designed as an extra layer of the OS. If they were comparable (i.e. if
by graemep 4mo ago
Its an argument about whether you want an init that is just an init, or an init that is designed as an extra layer of the OS.
If they were comparable (i.e. if systemd was just an init system) there would be no debate.
it does not help that the systemd devs are obnoxious and dismissive of concerns about compatibility. Lots of "its your problem" in their bug tracker on github.
- jdw64 4mo agoThanks to your summary, I finally understand. So it's about whether it's a small tool that only handles init, or whether it handles multiple layers. That's the issue. Thank you. I didn't know why there was a debate since the size difference between them is quite significant. so I don't know much about the Linux side. Have a good day.
- prmoustache 4mo agoA Linux system is build around many tools. Systemd replaced the init + gradually many othe parts, it can now handle logs, schedule jobs, manage containers, be the local dns resolver, etc. All the bricks that makes a linux system without systemd still exist. All those additional functions of systemd are optionnal but afaik they depend on systemd to handle the init to work. This is the reason openrc is often seen as a replacement as you first need to change the init to replace other functionnalities anyway.