3 ms·
The point he's making is that having One True System is the death of one of the biggest strengths of the Linux ecosystem: diversity. What he's ignoring is that
by akerl_ 13y ago
The point he's making is that having One True System is the death of one of the biggest strengths of the Linux ecosystem: diversity. What he's ignoring is that the various distros that are making this change have done so because they think it's the best decision for their users.
No higher power decreed "systemd or death" and forced it on the distros. They've adopted it on its merits, and most have retained the ability to run other init systems if the user wishes.
This is a pinnacle of the Linux ecosystem, not a blemish on its record: the larger community is working towards better interoperability between distros.
- makomk 13y agoWhat the systemd supporters are ignoring is that if the existing init system was as all-encompassing and heavily intertwined with the rest of the system as systemd is, it would be impossible to replace it with systemd no matter how much of an improvement it is.
- sparkie 13y agoThis time we have the right design! It will never need replacing, honest.
- sunfish 13y agoOne of my favorite phrases from the Refactoring world is "speculative generality". Adding customization points in the present can make adapting in the future easier if the future aligns with your expectations, and harder if it doesn't.
- akerl_ 13y agoAs I commented elsewhere, I'm running systemd with syslog-ng, netctl, and cronie. It plays just fine with them. Do you have examples of pieces I'd want to swap in but can't?
- vertex-four 13y agoHow about swapping it the other way around; what about using journald or logind without the rest of systemd, in the future?