Re: [DNG] Be prepared for the fall of systemd

[Laurent Bercot]

I find it symptomatic of the fact that a guy wrote some Rube Goldberg code and a
corporation decided it would be a great idea to spend millions getting the Rube
Goldberg code into many major distros. As far as us running our of road with the
Unix API, systemd solves no problem and offers no improvement that couldn't have
been solved or improved in a dozen different ways, almost all of which would 
have
been more modular and less prone to vendor lock in.


 We know all of this.
 Please keep these posts out of the supervision ML. It's not that we
don't like systemd-bashing, it's that it takes a lot of space and makes
a lot of noise, and I'd like the supervision ML to be laser-focused on
solving technical issues with supervision systems, not be yet another
place where we complain about systemd day in day out. Thanks.

--
 Laurent

Re: [DNG] Be prepared for the fall of systemd

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 15:36 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I came to the conclusion a while back that systemd was symptomatic of the
> fact that we had gone as far as the fundamental assumptions of the Unix API
> could take us. 

I find it symptomatic of the fact that a guy wrote some Rube Goldberg code and a
corporation decided it would be a great idea to spend millions getting the Rube
Goldberg code into many major distros. As far as us running our of road with the
Unix API, systemd solves no problem and offers no improvement that couldn't have
been solved or improved in a dozen different ways, almost all of which would 
have
been more modular and less prone to vendor lock in.

[snip]

> There is room for replacement of systemd and continuation of Linux and BSD.

Exactly! And if Redhat/IBM ever stops spending millions per year to keep systemd
from collapsing under its own weight, that room becomes a necessity.

> But we should be looking forward to something else as the next OS paradigm.

In the preceding sentence, I'd change the "But" to "Also".


SteveT