systemd should really include pulseaudio, and nginx. Oh, it already has a httpd in there.
You forget its own reimplementation of dhcpcd, IIRC.
What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
11–20 of 102 posts
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#12So... none?
Unintegrated desktop linux is painful, and the fixes for it so far have mostly been hacks. Systemd actually attempts to create some kind of modern cohesive system which is a good thing.
Maybe you don't see the downsides to the lack of integration because you're just used to putting up with them.
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#13systemd should really include pulseaudio, and nginx. Oh, it already has a httpd in there.
Maybe they should add a kernel, then it would be the "systemd OS with Linux compatibility."
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#14He's hit the nail on the head - systemd's fundamental design is not appropriate for the server environment: "I have to provide a system that runs reliably and can easily be reasoned about and yet I have to build it on distributions created by people who consider how long it takes to get to the fucking GDM login screen and if shutting the laptop lid will cause the system to hibernate properly or not."
> He's hit the nail on the head - systemd's fundamental design is not appropriate for the server environment:
[Citation needed]
From where I stand, systemd is what I always wanted on a server.
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#15So... none? Unintegrated desktop linux is painful, and the fixes for it so far have mostly been hacks. Systemd actually attempts to create some kind of modern cohesive system which is a good thing. Maybe you don't see the downsides to the lack of integration because you're just used to putting up with them.
What do you find to be painful in using linux on a desktop without systemd?
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#16As a user of linux on the desktop, I've never felt a moment of concern over the fact that it takes longer to boot than did Windows. I'm not sure who is panicked by this and I'm distressed that we would solve all of our problems with init by embracing systemd. If Gnome requires systemd, lets drop Gnome.
As a user of computers, I have never once felt that boot time was adequate for any device I have owned.
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#17So... none? Unintegrated desktop linux is painful, and the fixes for it so far have mostly been hacks. Systemd actually attempts to create some kind of modern cohesive system which is a good thing. Maybe you don't see the downsides to the lack of integration because you're just used to putting up with them.
I'd challenge you to find this level of monolithic architecture in a modern desktop OS like Mac OS X.
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#18Something that tends to get lost in these discussions: it's not a question of systemd-versus-sysvinit. Systemd is miles better than sysvinit. There's absolutely no question that the vast majority of Linux users would rather sysvinit disappear entirely.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't better alternatives. My personal preference is runit[1], which is based on djb's daemontools[2] and gives you all the dependency management and speed gains of systemd without the monolithic architecture and without the complicated shell scripts of sysvinit, as well as cool features like service management trees for non-root users. (In fact, runit doesn't need to be run as init—you can run it as a non-root user and provide service management even if you use another init. It just happens to make a nice init.)
The tests I've seen show that a minimal system with runit boots roughly as fast as than a minimal system with systemd. That doesn't mean runit is the end-all solution to "which init"—it's perfect for my needs, but maybe not yours—but it does mean that the choice is not a choice between systemd-but-fast versus sysvinit-but-slow. The field of choices is much, much broader.
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#19So... none? Unintegrated desktop linux is painful, and the fixes for it so far have mostly been hacks. Systemd actually attempts to create some kind of modern cohesive system which is a good thing. Maybe you don't see the downsides to the lack of integration because you're just used to putting up with them.
What do you find to be painful in using linux on a desktop without systemd?
Network configuration.
You don't need systemd to solve that, though!
Re: What “technical” concerns do I have with systemd?
#20He's hit the nail on the head - systemd's fundamental design is not appropriate for the server environment: "I have to provide a system that runs reliably and can easily be reasoned about and yet I have to build it on distributions created by people who consider how long it takes to get to the fucking GDM login screen and if shutting the laptop lid will cause the system to hibernate properly or not."
Was there even an argument presented in the section titled 'The invasion of “desktop linux”'? I couldn't find it. Where's the evidence that systemd is making design choices that are driven by desktop linux and detrimental to usage on servers?