4 ms·

> A fork, or an alternative init system, could be a good solution. I consider this a good idea. Servers and desktops are two different things so why not have t

by progman 12y ago

> A fork, or an alternative init system, could be a good solution. I consider this a good idea. Servers and desktops are two different things so why not have two different Debian versions? This way Debian Server could be kept small and simple while the systemd developers could continue without any restrictions. If they go too far then we could use the Debian server and add our own desktops to it.

asdfaoeu 12y ago
A lot of the components mentioned are actually optional and you can build systemd without them or disable them at runtime. I'm guessing this idea that this idea that systemd is targeted for the desktop is from the logind kerfuffle with GNOME and friends but it's actually an optional component. If anything though systemd is more targeted towards server market.
- XorNot 12y ago
  This. SystemD means you can boot the system without needing a shell installed at all which is what Debian has been proposing moving towards for a very minimal server image.
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    Ok, somebody has clearly jumped the shark!
- progman 12y ago
  Fine. There speaks nothing against Debian Desktop for servers by admins who prefer systemd. I am current happy Debian user myself, and I would use such a system for my desktop. However regarding servers I agree with the Unix veterans that Unix(-like) systems should be faithful to the KISS philosophy which made Unix so great. The IT world has become very complex, and we should not make it more complex than necessary. Debian and its derived distris took over the server world, and (AFAIK) it accomplished that with SystemV not with systemd. So SystemV is not that bad.
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    > However regarding servers I agree with the Unix veterans that Unix(-like) systems should be faithful to the KISS philosophy which made Unix so great. Unit files are surprisingly powerful and simple and follow KISS quite well (they're easier to maintain). systemd is also not quite as monolithic as some are wont to believe. > Debian and its derived distris took over the server world, and (AFAIK) it accomplished that with SystemV not with systemd. So SystemV is not that bad. This just seems disingenuous. It's almost like arguing we didn't need nginx because the web server market was won by Apache, not nginx. systemd has its warts, I won't deny that, but it seems that most of those opposed to it are opposed strictly on the merit that it's new and different.
  - gdamjan1 12y ago
    In the total sum, systemd and it's declarative unit files, is more KISS than all the services coming with their own shell scripts, their own log handling, their own daemonization etc. http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/daemon.html http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/daemon.html

by progman 12y ago

asdfaoeu 12y ago

A lot of the components mentioned are actually optional and you can build systemd without them or disable them at runtime. I'm guessing this idea that this idea that systemd is targeted for the desktop is from the logind kerfuffle with GNOME and friends but it's actually an optional component. If anything though systemd is more targeted towards server market.

XorNot 12y ago
This. SystemD means you can boot the system without needing a shell installed at all which is what Debian has been proposing moving towards for a very minimal server image.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  Ok, somebody has clearly jumped the shark!
progman 12y ago
Fine. There speaks nothing against Debian Desktop for servers by admins who prefer systemd. I am current happy Debian user myself, and I would use such a system for my desktop. However regarding servers I agree with the Unix veterans that Unix(-like) systems should be faithful to the KISS philosophy which made Unix so great. The IT world has become very complex, and we should not make it more complex than necessary. Debian and its derived distris took over the server world, and (AFAIK) it accomplished that with SystemV not with systemd. So SystemV is not that bad.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  > However regarding servers I agree with the Unix veterans that Unix(-like) systems should be faithful to the KISS philosophy which made Unix so great. Unit files are surprisingly powerful and simple and follow KISS quite well (they're easier to maintain). systemd is also not quite as monolithic as some are wont to believe. > Debian and its derived distris took over the server world, and (AFAIK) it accomplished that with SystemV not with systemd. So SystemV is not that bad. This just seems disingenuous. It's almost like arguing we didn't need nginx because the web server market was won by Apache, not nginx. systemd has its warts, I won't deny that, but it seems that most of those opposed to it are opposed strictly on the merit that it's new and different.
- gdamjan1 12y ago
  In the total sum, systemd and it's declarative unit files, is more KISS than all the services coming with their own shell scripts, their own log handling, their own daemonization etc. http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/daemon.html http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/daemon.html