[wmf]

If systemd is bad for servers, why did RHEL[1] and CoreOS adopt it? Are we to believe that these companies work against themselves?

[1] AFAIK 90% of Red Hat's revenue is from servers, not desktops.

[makomk]

It's a good weapon against Red Hat's proprietary Unix competitors like Solaris - by tying as many things as possible to systemd they ensure it can't run on non-Linux systems. Same reason the proprietary Unices had their own oddball service management frameworks, APIs, etc. Also, RHEL was still using the old, grotty sysvinit-based system where you had to manually specify the order in which services were started and stopped; almost anything's an improvement on that. (All the other major distros had migrated away from it ages ago.)

[e7620]

> 90% of Red Hat's revenue is from servers

just a correction, red hat revenue is from support contracts.

> If systemd is bad for servers, why did RHEL[1] and CoreOS adopt it? Are we to believe that these companies work against themselves?

I know of two theories:

1) making systemd a dependency for gnome and the rest, red hat is trying to exterminate *bsd, which is considered better for servers.

2) "Software that ain't broken doesn't sell $$$upport. "

[pessimizer]

You're either asking the wrong people, or making a silly argument.

edit: both redhat and CoreOS have email addresses, as far as I know.