3 ms·

What are you talking about? Debian had systemd on the discussion list for years and it was the default init system for other distros for just as long. What ex

by toolz 12y ago

What are you talking about? Debian had systemd on the discussion list for years and it was the default init system for other distros for just as long. What exactly about years of discussion doesn't align with the conservative choices of their other software defaults? Here's an article where debian is talking about systemd in 2011 [0]. Forgive me for beign a bit shocked when people say things like 'it happened so fast!', but it's almost like people just sincerely want to hate systemd. [0]http://lwn.net/Articles/452865/ http://lwn.net/Articles/452865/ edit: I really wanted to ignore this, but it's eating away at me. >and, more importantly, _works_ like Unix. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I get the feeling people who pretend their interpretation of the unix philosophy regarding systemd is the superior interpretation, probably didn't even know what the tenets of unix philosophy were before the drama.

agumonkey 12y ago
Maybe it's relative to systemd reach in the OS and the fact that it's not a no brainer (this topic as proof). How many deep changes Debian did before (I think there was a glibc/eglibc swap at one point) ?
- toolz 12y ago
  So how many years of discussion have to happen before you would consider it thoroughly discussed? How many years of top distro's using it by default before you would consider it vetted?
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    From my interpretation of smhenderson's post, one of Debian values was a very slow pace of change and old but well known pieces. In this light, systemd still seems too controversial. Fedora adopted it because it was an in-house project, archlinux tries to use cutting edge as much as possible, so it's irrelevant for that interpretation. I only read part of the Debian voting process, it's wasn't years but I admit not knowing how long systemd was discussed in Debian's ML before that. On archlinux board's, adoption was quickly reached (without too much user troubles).
    - digi_owl 12y ago
      Well in the typical Arch way it was a case of dictatorial "we are going systemd, deal with it". Also one of the busybodies within systemd development is directly involved with Arch maintenance... Btw, the big pedia claims that OpenSuse and Mageia(?) also use systemd. At least one of them is a fork of what used to be a RHEL fork with a more desktop orientation. Then again, the adoption may well have happened before systemd started absorbing/reimplementing so many other functions.
smhenderson 12y ago
Look, I come to hacker news to agree to disagree. If you like systemd than great but as far as I'm concerned it's still a moving target, does way more than replace the init system, uses binary where traditional Unix uses text and in general inserts itself into way too many things for me to be comfortable with it. Smarter people than me have done a great job of debating both sides of the issue and it looks like systemd has won. That doesn't mean I have to like it and thankfully I can fall back to using OpenBSD since I want a Unix that looks and feels like the Unix I've been using my whole career. I don't care if you disagree with me but please don't assume that I "don't even know the tenets of unix philosphy" becuase I happen to view systemd in a way that you apparently do not. If all the major distributions are going with systemd than OK, but the beauty of free software is that I have choices and I've made mine.

by toolz 12y ago

agumonkey 12y ago

Maybe it's relative to systemd reach in the OS and the fact that it's not a no brainer (this topic as proof). How many deep changes Debian did before (I think there was a glibc/eglibc swap at one point) ?

toolz 12y ago
So how many years of discussion have to happen before you would consider it thoroughly discussed? How many years of top distro's using it by default before you would consider it vetted?
- agumonkey 12y ago
  From my interpretation of smhenderson's post, one of Debian values was a very slow pace of change and old but well known pieces. In this light, systemd still seems too controversial. Fedora adopted it because it was an in-house project, archlinux tries to use cutting edge as much as possible, so it's irrelevant for that interpretation. I only read part of the Debian voting process, it's wasn't years but I admit not knowing how long systemd was discussed in Debian's ML before that. On archlinux board's, adoption was quickly reached (without too much user troubles).
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    Well in the typical Arch way it was a case of dictatorial "we are going systemd, deal with it". Also one of the busybodies within systemd development is directly involved with Arch maintenance... Btw, the big pedia claims that OpenSuse and Mageia(?) also use systemd. At least one of them is a fork of what used to be a RHEL fork with a more desktop orientation. Then again, the adoption may well have happened before systemd started absorbing/reimplementing so many other functions.

smhenderson 12y ago

Look, I come to hacker news to agree to disagree. If you like systemd than great but as far as I'm concerned it's still a moving target, does way more than replace the init system, uses binary where traditional Unix uses text and in general inserts itself into way too many things for me to be comfortable with it. Smarter people than me have done a great job of debating both sides of the issue and it looks like systemd has won. That doesn't mean I have to like it and thankfully I can fall back to using OpenBSD since I want a Unix that looks and feels like the Unix I've been using my whole career. I don't care if you disagree with me but please don't assume that I "don't even know the tenets of unix philosphy" becuase I happen to view systemd in a way that you apparently do not. If all the major distributions are going with systemd than OK, but the beauty of free software is that I have choices and I've made mine.