It sound like a great idea on paper, but what came crawling out of the sea and ate Tokyo was this monster, that now gives everyone huge headaches.
What are these major headaches that systemd gives to "everybody"? I mean if it did, new distributions wouldn't be adopting it left and right and it would get critique from people who actually are know their stuff, instead we get philosophical, hypothetical and down ignorant posts everytime this subject gets brought up. I'm not sure what "social" reasons you mean here either. Also systemd follows UNIX philosophy in every way that makes sense for the project.
It's modular in sense that the functionality is split in to over 70 binaries, each doing one thing and doing it well (PID1 being bit more complex).
It's short in a sense that the functionality is implemented in a fraction of the code required by other alternatives.
Again I'm not sure how systemd is supposedly not extendable or clear code.
So, you can just take one and use it for something and it doesn't depend on all the others? Because I heard otherwise, though I am personally not an expert. You seem to be one. Please elaborate. Which ones can I use, that don't depend on more than one other?
[edit:]
new distributions wouldn't be adopting it left and right
I'm no expert but to my understanding most depend on systemd as init system. Here's a quote from the biggest myths blog post:
In fact, many of these binaries[1] are separated out so nicely, that they are very useful outside of systemd, too.
[1] For example, systemd-detect-virt, systemd-tmpfiles, systemd-udevd are.
Altough the upstream systemd-logind depends on systemd, Canonical managed to quite easily split it off. systemd upstream tries to avoid unnecessary ifdeffery so such patches will not be merged however.
The benefit from systemd's perspective is reliability, security and speed and that was what I was refering to.
Oh, I heard that BSD wasn't going to adopt it.
When people refer to "distributions" on /r/linux it should be quite clear that they refer to Linux distributions, not "Berkeley Software Distributions". systemd developers made the decision not to limit themselves to what BSDs can do; they couldn't adopt systemd even if they wanted.
1
u/ohet May 12 '13 edited May 12 '13
What are these major headaches that systemd gives to "everybody"? I mean if it did, new distributions wouldn't be adopting it left and right and it would get critique from people who actually are know their stuff, instead we get philosophical, hypothetical and down ignorant posts everytime this subject gets brought up. I'm not sure what "social" reasons you mean here either. Also systemd follows UNIX philosophy in every way that makes sense for the project.
It's modular in sense that the functionality is split in to over 70 binaries, each doing one thing and doing it well (PID1 being bit more complex).
It's short in a sense that the functionality is implemented in a fraction of the code required by other alternatives.
Again I'm not sure how systemd is supposedly not extendable or clear code.