11–20 of 118 posts
I don't want systemd because I don't trust Lennart Poettering to be able to write reliable code.
I don't want systemd because I don't trust Lennart Poettering to be able to write reliable code.
Downvoting this post is unwarranted. Everything that Lennart Poettering has ever done was an unreliable clusterfuck[1] astray from the Unix philosphy. There's nothing that he has ever done that is considered "good" by a majority of Unix-derivative users. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTdUmlGxVo0
Poettering has clearly the better arguments than this reactionary Draxinger die-hard.
> systemd being Linux-only is not nice to the BSDs. >Completely wrong. The BSD folks are pretty much uninterested in systemd. If systemd was portable, this would change nothing, they still wouldn't adopt it systemd is not portable, it wasn't made to be portable, it relies on far too many linuxisms. Therefore the BSD's don't care about it. It is not 'the BSD's don't care about it so we didn't make it portable.'
launchd (OS X) and SMF (solaris) weren't portable, either.
By the way, when was the last time a BSD operating system cared about making their init system portable to Linux?
I'm not sure why systemd not being portable to other operating systems is suddenly a big deal.
Given the title, I'll allow that most of these points are defensive and brusque. Unfortunately, this tends to be par for the course for the developer, and I think that turns people off. Fundamentally, systemd tried solving too many problems at once, in a ways that inadvertently annoyed people. It replaced so much of the core infrastructure that upgrading systems resulted in an admin experience that feels alien. Givin…
Not really...
> systemd being Linux-only is not nice to the BSDs. >Completely wrong. The BSD folks are pretty much uninterested in systemd. If systemd was portable, this would change nothing, they still wouldn't adopt it systemd is not portable, it wasn't made to be portable, it relies on far too many linuxisms. Therefore the BSD's don't care about it. It is not 'the BSD's don't care about it so we didn't make it portable.'
I disagree, I think that Lennart is right. Nobody really cares if systemd is not portable. Upstart was not portable to BSDs, and nobody cared. The traditional sysvinit system was, AFAIK, not portable until the debian/freebsd people bothered about it. Heck, the init scripts in Linux used to be not portable even between different Linux distros. launchd (OS X) and SMF (solaris) weren't portable, either. By the way, when…
> systemd being Linux-only is not nice to the BSDs. >Completely wrong. The BSD folks are pretty much uninterested in systemd. If systemd was portable, this would change nothing, they still wouldn't adopt it systemd is not portable, it wasn't made to be portable, it relies on far too many linuxisms. Therefore the BSD's don't care about it. It is not 'the BSD's don't care about it so we didn't make it portable.'
I disagree, I think that Lennart is right. Nobody really cares if systemd is not portable. Upstart was not portable to BSDs, and nobody cared. The traditional sysvinit system was, AFAIK, not portable until the debian/freebsd people bothered about it. Heck, the init scripts in Linux used to be not portable even between different Linux distros. launchd (OS X) and SMF (solaris) weren't portable, either. By the way, when…
Because software being written that has systemd as a dependency will be Linux only software.
> systemd being Linux-only is not nice to the BSDs. >Completely wrong. The BSD folks are pretty much uninterested in systemd. If systemd was portable, this would change nothing, they still wouldn't adopt it systemd is not portable, it wasn't made to be portable, it relies on far too many linuxisms. Therefore the BSD's don't care about it. It is not 'the BSD's don't care about it so we didn't make it portable.'
I disagree, I think that Lennart is right. Nobody really cares if systemd is not portable. Upstart was not portable to BSDs, and nobody cared. The traditional sysvinit system was, AFAIK, not portable until the debian/freebsd people bothered about it. Heck, the init scripts in Linux used to be not portable even between different Linux distros. launchd (OS X) and SMF (solaris) weren't portable, either. By the way, when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, I think that Lennart is right. Nobody really cares if systemd is not portable. Upstart was not portable to BSDs, and nobody cared. The traditional sysvinit system was, AFAIK, not portable until the debian/freebsd people bothered about it. Heck, the init scripts in Linux used to be not portable even between different Linux distros. launchd (OS X) and SMF (solaris) weren't portable, either. By the way, when…
> I'm not sure why systemd not being portable to other operating systems is suddenly a big deal. Because software being written that has systemd as a dependency will be Linux only software.
And this is news, and suddenly it's systemd's fault?
If you hate Linux-only software, software that depends on systemd is the last of your problems. Software that depends on glibc and the Linux kernel are probable the main offenders.
Given the title, I'll allow that most of these points are defensive and brusque. Unfortunately, this tends to be par for the course for the developer, and I think that turns people off. Fundamentally, systemd tried solving too many problems at once, in a ways that inadvertently annoyed people. It replaced so much of the core infrastructure that upgrading systems resulted in an admin experience that feels alien. Givin…
I prefer reading "This is wrong, because ..." over "This is right, but ...", since it's more honest.