Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AdieuToLogic 2417 days ago
> > Systemd is monolithic,

> It's monolythic [sic] in the same what that the GNU project or FreeBSD is monolithic.

The FreeBSD system initialization artifacts are not monolithic.

> > "Linux monoculture" is a real thing, and systemd makes it seriously more monocultural.

> FreeBSD is a monoculture. OS X is a monoculture. Solaris is a monoculture. OpenBSD is a monoculture.

This is straw man incarnate.

> > It was not entirely gently pushed on everyone by Red Hat, by making Gnome dependent on it.

> Lies and misrepresentations.

Not according to here[0].

If you want to be a "systemd warrior", fine, feel free to be so. But don't lump FreeBSD and other Unix systems into your crusade.

BTW, when you wrote:

> Because systemd has unified OS design for Linux ...

Know that an init system, any init system, does not design nor define an Operating System.

And while your disdain for shell scripts is readily apparent, what you proffer as the benefit of "... systemd uses a declarative configuration syntax that all you need to do is create a parser ..." ignores the fact that POSIX shell scripts provide this feature by definition. Including, but not limited to, being able to source other files which define requisite variables.

0 - https://www.quora.com/Why-does-GNOME-3-require-systemd
1 comments
diffeomorphism 2417 days ago
> The FreeBSD system initialization artifacts are not monolithic.

And nobody claimed that... . The claim was that FreeBSD is monolithic in the same way that the systemd project (logind, nspawn etc. ) is monolithic.

> Not according to here[0].

Okay, let's click on that. First sentence "It doesn't". What were you trying to argue again?

> Know that an init system, any init system, does not design nor define an Operating System.

Are you purposely confusing systemd-init and systemd the project? Because your argument is the same as "GNU does not design or define an OS", which many people would call plain wrong.

link
AdieuToLogic 2416 days ago
> > Not according to here[0].

> Okay, let's click on that. First sentence "It doesn't". What were you trying to argue again?

And the second sentence says:

  What it requires is a service that
  implements the same set of APIs as
  systemd-logind.
Since GNOME requires either systemd-logind or something that behaves exactly as systemd-logind, how does that not express a transitive dependency on systemd?

So what are you trying to argue again?

> > Know that an init system, any init system, does not design nor define an Operating System.

> Are you purposely confusing systemd-init and systemd the project?

No, what I stated I thought was quite clear: an init system does not design nor define an Operating System.

This is orthogonal to the question you present.

0 - https://www.quora.com/Why-does-GNOME-3-require-systemd

link