2 ms·

I have mixed feelings about systemd: like many others, I've spent a lot of time with traditional Unix systems (25 years) and like the simplicity and stability c

I have mixed feelings about systemd: like many others, I've spent a lot of time with traditional Unix systems (25 years) and like the simplicity and stability commonly associated with them and familiar tools/conventions. On the other hand, OS X showed what a modern system built on Unix should feel and look like, while Linux never got anywhere near (not only on the GUI layer). If it takes unreasonable people to make progress (like in the famous G.B. Shaw quote), then let's sit back and see what happens. Perhaps Linux will shed more cruft and become simpler to develop for rather than harder. Of course, I'm in the favourable position of not having to maintain/administer a bunch of Linux boxes for a living. I can fully understand the frustration of people who built and shipped custom solutions on top of SysV init. The end of Linux? No, it's the end of Linux as a traditional Unix with lots of arbitrary optional features on top perhaps. We'll get used to it, or switch to something better.

e40 12y ago
On the other hand, OS X showed what a modern system built on Unix should feel and look like, while Linux never got anywhere near (not only on the GUI layer). This feels like a non-sequitur. The nice GUI of Mac OS X has nothing to do with launchd (which is the systemd-like portion of Mac OS X).
- scott_karana 12y ago
  Are you kidding me? Launchd helps coordinate a massive selection of on-demand GUI-related services and their prerequisites. (254 services on my Mavericks install as of writing) SysV init is ill-suited to that sort of complex event-oriented management, which (for example) is exactly why Canonical developed Upstart in the first place.
chrsw 12y ago
Progress is good. But is systemd progress?
- lazyjones 12y ago
  > is systemd progress? My knee-jerk reaction would be to say "no", but many people who are more involved with this part of Linux seem to think so, I don't feel qualified to challenge that. I am confident that more radical changes are good in general, as long as the bazaar model allows the best solutions to survive and the worst to be undone if needed.

e40 12y ago

On the other hand, OS X showed what a modern system built on Unix should feel and look like, while Linux never got anywhere near (not only on the GUI layer). This feels like a non-sequitur. The nice GUI of Mac OS X has nothing to do with launchd (which is the systemd-like portion of Mac OS X).

scott_karana 12y ago
Are you kidding me? Launchd helps coordinate a massive selection of on-demand GUI-related services and their prerequisites. (254 services on my Mavericks install as of writing) SysV init is ill-suited to that sort of complex event-oriented management, which (for example) is exactly why Canonical developed Upstart in the first place.

chrsw 12y ago

Progress is good. But is systemd progress?

lazyjones 12y ago
> is systemd progress? My knee-jerk reaction would be to say "no", but many people who are more involved with this part of Linux seem to think so, I don't feel qualified to challenge that. I am confident that more radical changes are good in general, as long as the bazaar model allows the best solutions to survive and the worst to be undone if needed.