> Really? That's what you think the whole difference between the distros is, the fucking init system? Systemd isn't (just) an init system. According to Poetter

> Really? That's what you think the whole difference between the distros is, the fucking init system? Systemd isn't (just) an init system. According to Poettering himself, in a recent talk[1], noted how systemd has already taken over: "init system, journal logging, login management, device management, temporary and volatile file management, binary format registration, backlight save/restore, rfkill save/restore, bootchart, readahead, encrypted storage setup, EFI/GPT partition discovery, virtual machine/container registration, minimal container management, hostname management, locale management, time management, random seed management, sysctl variable management, and console managment." His roadmap for the next features to annex includes: - DNS/DNSSEC, mDNS responder - IPC (kernel code! (kdbus, etc)) - NTP - More container integration, w/ new OS image format - mandating layout of /usr /etc and /var - "Verifiable OS images" "All the way to the firmware" "Boot Loading" (good luck using custom kernels once PoetteringOS starts requiring UEFI SecureBoot) - (etc) Do you call that "the fucking init system"? There isn't much left after that, and if past and current behavior is any judge, Poettering will probably expand that list over time. > Or that it's unique directory layout and symlink farm That's exactly the kind of thing that the systemd crowd is trying to prevent. See the part above where the current goal is to mandate the filesystem layout. Remember, it was Poettering himself that said that the goal of systemd was to "...get rid of many of the more pointless differences of the various distributions..." > Obviously, you aren't aware of the debian-devel thread on the matter. Obviously, the author has read that threat (as have I). It was quite the experience, and is one of the most revealing threads I've seen regarding the abusive, manipulative, our-way-or-nothing methods used by the systemd camp. Debian has indeed made a dangerous choice, which was further discussed in the replies to this LKML post. > And Debian too? All of these groups don't believe in freedom? They're just one huge cabal... No such claim was made. Debian has put itself in a situation where the freedom currently enjoyed will not be possible in the future. Systemd is forcing incompatibilities with the traditional Linux/Unix ways - on purpose - and they already have limited manpower. Siding with systemd will require either more manpower than they have, or dropping the "old ways". > ...the author is a long way from finding any answers... Ahh, attacking the author. This type of tactic is pretty common from the systemd shills, as a method of shutting down the discussion. Instead of using this kind of rhetoric, I suggest actually reading up on the history of the current init situation. Unless you actually want Linux to become a windows-style monoculture, incompatible with most traditional unix software - because removing "old" features and backwards compatibility is the stated goal of the larger "CoreOS"/systemd project. [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTczNDk http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTczNDk