|
|
|
|
|
by ziggy_star
726 days ago
|
|
I don't believe for a moment that was the initial aim of systemd. They just tried to improve on a pile of hacks and by pulling on that string it sort of ends up touching (or from your perspective infecting) everything. It vaguely reminds me of people arguing about "what color is your function". You open that portal and end up in a new universe. All or nothing. The unix wars are long over I'm not sure what you can point to that ever was a True Unix. Nostalgia not withstanding. What well defined standard Right Way you're actually clinging to is not clear. Whether it will end up for the best or not I don't know but the entire saga seems to be the pitfalls of endless tinkering on display rather than some unifying vision. I wish we lived in a world where systemd type efforts had clear end goals and well thought out architecture in mind when they start but open source doesn't like working this way. It just ends up as "my favorite way of doing things is better" based on vibes. In both directions. That's the problem with "philosophies". |
|
The best argument I have seen for systemd is that it adds a layer that will be used and standardised across multiple distros (most effectively in a video of a talk by a FreeBSD developer). The best argument against is that it is massive and does too much.