3 ms·
The implication that systemd is not a product strikes me as odd given that a core aspect of systemd's marketing and leverage was precisely that it supplied a to
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The implication that systemd is not a product strikes me as odd given that a core aspect of systemd's marketing and leverage was precisely that it supplied a ton of policy decisions as to how distributions should operate, as opposed to simply mechanism.
Lennart is controversial, but he usually provides more-or-less decent reasons for technical trade-offs. Here though? Complete copout.
- bjourne 11y agoYou are comparing apples to oranges. systemd takes policy decisions but it doesn't provide infrastructure and a set of ntp servers is infrastructure. Likewise, a web server encodes a lot policies (most of which aren't set in stone by any standard) on how http requests should be handled but it doesn't come with a default cdn.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agobut it doesn't provide infrastructure ...How does it not? That's the point of systemd: provide a GNU/Linux middleware with lots of policy decisions on the structure of distros to supposedly bring integration and uniformity benefits. The fact that it's core infrastructure but heavily delves outside of mechanism is what makes it so controversial.
- bjourne 11y agoI meant physical server infrastructure. Not the allegorical infrastructure formed by Linux packages communicating. Yes, I know the infrastructure word is horribly overloaded.