3 ms·

There isn't anything wrong with the systemd concept. However, what many of the people I've discussed this have an issue with are: * Becoming the default init

There isn't anything wrong with the systemd concept. However, what many of the people I've discussed this have an issue with are: * Becoming the default init in stable even though it's fairly new (and untested) * Strong break from how common tasks are done (e.g. logging) * Applications are very tied together and cannot easily be replaced or left out. * NIH syndrome (e.g. their DNS resolver that just had a major caching issue)

pmoriarty 12y ago
There is plenty wrong with the systemd concept. Apart from your own list of things wrong with it, it is also monolithic, which goes directly against the Unix Philosophy,[1] which when concisely expressed is: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface. Systemd is an application that more properly belongs on Microsoft Windows and MacOS, because of their own tendency towards centralization and control. But I'm not surprised that many popular Linux distros have chosen to adopt systemd, as they suffer from a bad case of Windows and Apple envy. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  You don't need to convince me systemd is doing it wrong! I'm in the process of switching to FreeBSD because I don't want the default system to contain something that hasn't been well tested. (Yes, it's a stupid thing, but I've been toying with switching for other reasons and this kind of made me do it :) I've also drunk the jails kool-aid for my next project.) The "systemd concept", from what I understand (and is by no means specific to systemd), is to have a smarter init system for starting processes in order and better process management. Additionally, all the IPC "stuff" that's been happening and being touted reminds me a lot of microkernels where you could write small, simple services that do a single thing over a common, programmatic interface. Systemd however feels much too integrated and makes no effort to make it easy to swap components. I'm also sort-of shocked that almost all the major distros just switched within a year or two of each other. Especially distros like RH and Debian (yes I know systemd is deved at RH) who bill themselves as "stable." So there is nothing wrong with wanting a better init system and a common IPC platform, but that doesn't mean systemd is the best we can do.
- mappu 12y ago
  I've posted this before but >goes directly against the Unix Philosophy "Those days are dead and gone and the eulogy was delivered by Perl." -- Rob Pike

pmoriarty 12y ago

There is plenty wrong with the systemd concept. Apart from your own list of things wrong with it, it is also monolithic, which goes directly against the Unix Philosophy,[1] which when concisely expressed is: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface. Systemd is an application that more properly belongs on Microsoft Windows and MacOS, because of their own tendency towards centralization and control. But I'm not surprised that many popular Linux distros have chosen to adopt systemd, as they suffer from a bad case of Windows and Apple envy. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

jimktrains2 12y ago
You don't need to convince me systemd is doing it wrong! I'm in the process of switching to FreeBSD because I don't want the default system to contain something that hasn't been well tested. (Yes, it's a stupid thing, but I've been toying with switching for other reasons and this kind of made me do it :) I've also drunk the jails kool-aid for my next project.) The "systemd concept", from what I understand (and is by no means specific to systemd), is to have a smarter init system for starting processes in order and better process management. Additionally, all the IPC "stuff" that's been happening and being touted reminds me a lot of microkernels where you could write small, simple services that do a single thing over a common, programmatic interface. Systemd however feels much too integrated and makes no effort to make it easy to swap components. I'm also sort-of shocked that almost all the major distros just switched within a year or two of each other. Especially distros like RH and Debian (yes I know systemd is deved at RH) who bill themselves as "stable." So there is nothing wrong with wanting a better init system and a common IPC platform, but that doesn't mean systemd is the best we can do.
mappu 12y ago
I've posted this before but >goes directly against the Unix Philosophy "Those days are dead and gone and the eulogy was delivered by Perl." -- Rob Pike