On Sunday 16 Feb 2014 19:00:43 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: > On 16.02.2014 20:50, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > [ ... ] > > > It's because they are cons only if you agree with systemd's view of the > > world. > > > > I do. > > Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of > systemd? ;) > > I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into > any existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just > practical uselessness? > > Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the > Linux kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of > kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has > much in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us > it provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc. > > A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the > questions: > 1. Is the software standards-compliant? > 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation? > 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal? > 4. Does the software achieve the goal? > 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"? > 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be > like? 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or > group? > > AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are > dubious if just plain "no". > > I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to > switch to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and > the benefit, if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold. > > But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. > Time is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, > twice the money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the > users' opinion. To be a realist, one has to admit that in near future > 90% of new distro versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx > emerge and take over Red Hat...
You may have lost it in the link that Volker posted (thanks Volker), but this comment from HaakonKL probably sums it up: "... I will give Upstart this though: Should something better come along, you could replace upstart. I guess this holds true for OpenRC as well. You can't say that about systemd." Can you surgically remove systemd in the future without reverse engineering half of what the LSB would look at the time, or will its developers ensure that this is a one time choice only? -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
