3 ms·

The "systemd" project really isn't about having just an init system. systemd by itself is an init, but the project includes several other tools related to manag

The "systemd" project really isn't about having just an init system. systemd by itself is an init, but the project includes several other tools related to managing the system as a whole beyond just starting services. The project integrates a bunch of utilities that each accomplish something on their own. To me, it makes perfect sense for these tools to be tightly integrated, both with each other and with the OS kernel, simply because they are interrelated and integration leads to greater stability and a less fragile system overall. No doubt upstream could be less hostile towards attempts to distill out the portable bits, but I can understand their viewpoint... Systemd is ultimately about making Linux-based systems run well.

sparkie 13y ago
> simply because they are interrelated and integration leads to greater stability and a less fragile system overall. This is completely counter to the way we actually design software - which is to create modular, loosely coupled components, using abstractions which allow them to adapt or be replaced, and trying to make as few assumptions as we can, since we can't predict the future. It's well understood that tight coupling is what leads to fragility and maintenance nightmares, due to decades of experience writing and maintaining such abominations.
- chousuke 13y ago
  That just sounds like an argument from idealism. Writing software is all about tradeoffs, and not supporting non-Linux systems is one tradeoff that systemd makes, for a good reason. In this case, close integration with the kernel is required to be able to produce the features envisioned. You might perhaps find some instances where systemd components are needlessly interrelated, but the claim that it isn't modular is mostly a myth.