[kreetx]

Sure, but that's like saying my coffee machine also makes latte and hot chocolate. I guess what I'm asking is: do any of these taste bad, and how? Perhaps the parent had a few of these on his/her mind that could have been listed.

[fsflover]

Unix philosophy has a reason. It allows to easily replace components and simplifies testing. AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things.

[crazy_hombre]

> AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things.

You can easily replace timesyncd with any NTP daemon. You can easily replace networkd with any other networking manager. You can easily replace timer units with cron. You can easily forward log messages to a syslog daemon. You can easily replace systemd-boot with grub or any other boot manager.

It should be pretty obvious how baseless the monolithic arguments against systemd are.

[kreetx]

I know the philosophy. What I'm trying to get at is that perhaps the thing that came before was a set of things that didn't quite work together, so now they made something that does.

(And was just wondering if there was any specific thing the original parent wanted to replace.)

[fsflover]

Some relevant old comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12335783

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12652071

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065830

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8672887

[kreetx]

Did you just search for "unix philosophy" and found some links?

Again, was just interested if you had any specific thing you could point to, but elsewhere in the comments I see now a few concrete issues.