On 16.02.2014 23:26, Mick wrote:
On Sunday 16 Feb 2014 19:00:43 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
[ ... ]
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:
Sorry, by the time Volker posted his message, I was already writing mine.
"... 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?
Do you disagree with my statement that "in near future 90% of new distro
versions will be systemd-based"? Or with some other statement of mine?
If the former, then I intentionally put it down to money with no regard
to technical performance because money is usually what ultimately
matters for maintainers.
From a Software User's POV, as I said, I agree that systemd is a load
of bul^W things whose significance is at the least overrated. From a
technical POV, I bet, most systemd's cookies could be implemented within
any other init system as well, if required.
But in the Real World, software users either develop theirs own if they
have the resources, or get what they are given by those who have. So my
whole message was about -- whether OpenRC/upstart/anything guys have
resources to "show'em" or eventually fall to systemd.
--
Best wishes,
Yuri K. Shatroff
