| > "Systemd as the last init we ever create" ... they just wanted to talk about how bad SysV was and that systemd was progress... I was impeding progress... Yeah, that rhetoric was maddening. Poettering and crew were -and continue to be- absolutely incapable of maintaining a project of such scope and importance. Do you remember the fucking kdbus saga? I really wish the folks on the kernel side of that who were responsible for asking careful, technical questions, thinking deeply about the answers that they got, and cutting through the bluster and misdirection they received had been the ones in charge of deciding the new Debian init system for... Jessie, was it? > But, we're here now, and replacing systemd at this point will require being API and bug compatible or else major software (like GNOME) won't run at all. I've heard from many folks who have tried to reimplement substantial parts of the SystemD. [0] They report that the documentation is woefully inadequate, the interactions between components get incredibly complex, and the project maintainers have a habit of breaking things whenever they feel like it. This breakage doesn't matter to things they maintain, because they can make changes to account for it... but for "out of tree" reimplementations, well, they are -perhaps correctly- entirely disinterested in worrying about those. > So, systemd is the last init we'll ever have, just like I feared. Eh. I still hold hope that Debian or some other major distro will notice how unsuited the SystemD maintainers are to long-term stewardship of something so wide-reaching and critically important and cast about for alternatives. We'll see. [0] This is a shorthand for "Systemd Project", not a slur against it. It sucks that systemd(1) and the project that contain it share the same name. [1] [1] For a real-world example of the sort of conversation this confusion causes, check out [2] [2] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48716382> |