31–40 of 102 posts
Why weren't any of these objections heard back before Canonical knuckled under? Was upstart even worse? I really enjoyed the "impotent rage" piece linked in TFA's comments.
There have been "better init" options for many years, none of which gained much traction. So most of us figured the community as a whole wasn't very bothered. IMO systemd has only achieved "popularity" by using some very underhanded tactics.
Assuming that everything the author says turns out true - such as the "big one" exploit - in say an year from now, does anybody know any active popular open source distro that aims to keep systemd away from servers?
As 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.
Slackware is an example of this. They removed Gnome almost a decade ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you "have to" build it on those distros? Why not use a server distro that doesn't even have X let alone GDM?
The problem is that in many server environments, particularly at scale, the speed of the bootstrap processes of the OS doesn't matter. One of the goals of systemd is to make the bootstrap process faster, which is irrelevant for those (non-desktop) use cases. So you see, systemd is solving problems, and making trade-offs to do it, that just don't matter for the non-desktop use case. I can of course choose not to insta…
So... 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.
He'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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you "have to" build it on those distros? Why not use a server distro that doesn't even have X let alone GDM?
The problem is that in many server environments, particularly at scale, the speed of the bootstrap processes of the OS doesn't matter. One of the goals of systemd is to make the bootstrap process faster, which is irrelevant for those (non-desktop) use cases. So you see, systemd is solving problems, and making trade-offs to do it, that just don't matter for the non-desktop use case. I can of course choose not to insta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you "have to" build it on those distros? Why not use a server distro that doesn't even have X let alone GDM?
The problem is that in many server environments, particularly at scale, the speed of the bootstrap processes of the OS doesn't matter. One of the goals of systemd is to make the bootstrap process faster, which is irrelevant for those (non-desktop) use cases. So you see, systemd is solving problems, and making trade-offs to do it, that just don't matter for the non-desktop use case. I can of course choose not to insta…
Slackware is a major distro. So I expect everyone who opposes systemd to migrate to Slackware, and I'll get even more slackbuilds to browse through on SBO, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!