|
|
|
|
|
by matheusmoreira
20 days ago
|
|
Not at all. The point was that using systemd is somehow "mandated". It's not, people chose systemd because it's actually better and made life easier compared to some POSIX nonsense. The point was that this non-existent "mandate" caused a "bifurcation" from "standards-based" software to Linux-specific. If anything is being "mandated" here, it's the POSIX compliance. Nobody is obligated to follow this like it's some sort of religion. The standard is garbage and should be forgotten. The point was that systemd was "the bane" of FLOSS. Systemd is itself FLOSS, it's literally GPL'd. And pretty good FLOSS at that. It's just not "standards compliant" which makes it heretical or something. Total nonsense. There are no "strawmen" here. Just downvote silently if you disagree and don't want to argue. |
|
If you're using RedHat or Debian and most of their derivative distributions, it is.
> people chose systemd because it's actually better
No, they did not. Most people did not choose systemd, their Linux distributions did.
RedHat chose their own system for their own distributions; on Debian, a controvertial process foisted it onto the distribution using gaslit rhetoric; and I don't know much about the process elswehre.
> The point was
That was not the point.
> It's just not "standards compliant"
This is the straw man you've created. Neither my post nor most critique of systemd regards "standards compliance".