4 ms·

Agreed. I maintain my stance as a critic of systemD but it's better than what we had before. I've very little to criticise it as an init system... My criticism

Agreed. I maintain my stance as a critic of systemD but it's better than what we had before. I've very little to criticise it as an init system... My criticism falls more towards the issues of "why is this all in one process not task specific child processes launched by a core init process" and "why can't you make this work on BSD" and "why the f%*^# hell are you building kdbus... Please stop killing the kittens"

sandGorgon 12y ago
But why should someone writing for Linux think about OpenBSD? Are you saying every piece of BSD software runs on Linux? Go try telling Linus that you want a BSD compatible kernel. Systemd does not run on BSD because of Cgroups and that is something the BSD maintainers don't want. Here's a small set of justifications why : systemd leverages core Linux infrastructure that has already diverged from OpenBSD http://lwn.net/Articles/524920/ http://lwn.net/Articles/524920/ Having said that, there is work that the systems is sponsoring a project that implements systemd on OpenBSD http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc4MjQ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc4MjQ
- the_why_of_y 12y ago
  It's sort of funny for me how the systemd attitude towards portability is quite similar to that of the OpenBSD community, whose software (OpenSSH, OpenSMTPD, OpenBGPD...) generally runs on OpenBSD only and where porting is done by a separate team, but somehow the interwebs aren't full of rants calling the OpenBSD people jerks for not caring about non-OpenBSD platforms...
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    OpenSSH seems to be the best known of the bunch, and even then it is loosely couples to the rest of the system. Systemd on the other hand is rightly couples to the Linux kernel (to the point that you may have to update systemd and the Linux kernel in lockstep), and its many sub-systems are tightly coupled to the existence of systemd-pid1. This makes systemd a whole other beast from OpenSSH.

sandGorgon 12y ago

But why should someone writing for Linux think about OpenBSD? Are you saying every piece of BSD software runs on Linux? Go try telling Linus that you want a BSD compatible kernel. Systemd does not run on BSD because of Cgroups and that is something the BSD maintainers don't want. Here's a small set of justifications why : systemd leverages core Linux infrastructure that has already diverged from OpenBSD http://lwn.net/Articles/524920/ http://lwn.net/Articles/524920/ Having said that, there is work that the systems is sponsoring a project that implements systemd on OpenBSD http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc4MjQ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc4MjQ

the_why_of_y 12y ago
It's sort of funny for me how the systemd attitude towards portability is quite similar to that of the OpenBSD community, whose software (OpenSSH, OpenSMTPD, OpenBGPD...) generally runs on OpenBSD only and where porting is done by a separate team, but somehow the interwebs aren't full of rants calling the OpenBSD people jerks for not caring about non-OpenBSD platforms...
- digi_owl 12y ago
  OpenSSH seems to be the best known of the bunch, and even then it is loosely couples to the rest of the system. Systemd on the other hand is rightly couples to the Linux kernel (to the point that you may have to update systemd and the Linux kernel in lockstep), and its many sub-systems are tightly coupled to the existence of systemd-pid1. This makes systemd a whole other beast from OpenSSH.