He has Red Hat's support. Anyway, no need to jump ship to the BSD clones. Just use Gentoo - OpenRC is a great init system: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC
Not so sure about that. Since "mainstream" Linux is now on systemd, how long can some of these alternative init systems remain viable?
I always preferred the BSDs on the server anyway, systemd was just the final nudge I needed to get me to run it on my dev box (it actually makes things simpler anyway, I was not relishing the thought of having completely different init systems on my dev box and servers).
Speaking as a sysadmin, I find something like launchd/upstart/systemd a ridiculously superior alternative to init scripts, in every way. So this is a good thing. (For various values of "systemd-like".)
Also speaking as a sysadmin, I've found "every way" to be inaccurate. Initscripts have their limitations, but the most glaring issues with them (lots of boilerplate, hard to write, etc.) have been resolved in BSD Land for quite a while, thanks to things like rc.subr.
systemd does have some nice features that I've come to appreciate on my GNU/Linux boxen, but I'm still not exactly sold when my OpenBSD boxen have a mostly-sane rc system not subject to most of the problems the systemd crowd claims are inherent to initscript-based systems.
true, I'm talking about fairly generic Ubuntu VMs out in the fog. But basically, the facilities available cover my common use cases very nicely on the occasions I actually have to write a startup script - I'm finding an upstart config vastly preferable to cobbling together an init shell script, and have yet (out of about 5-10 cases) had to resort to a shell script.
That's not a problem. Even a good thing and the BSDs will build one properly.
The problem is how systemd came to be (through political games indeed of merit) and that it's not just an init replacement but that it gets its grubby fingers everywhere in the OS and that it's turning Linux into a Windows-like binary blob mess.
There's a difference between discussion regarding /a/ more in-depth system framework and discussion regarding a specific system framework. One of the constant things written about in these threads though is that they /don't/ want something "systemd-like" because it is such an intrusive, obstinate framework. I see some good ideas coming from the systemd framework, however, its consistent choice of poor defaults and byzantine structure leave me desiring something of a bit more lucid vision.
They are? That's interesting. Please provide details. What systemd-like systems are (to start with) the OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD, MirOS BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD/PC-BSD, and Debian kFreeBSD people actively working on?
I'd go 100% OpenBSD if it wasn't for my deep-seated love affair with GNU and it's concepts (if not the figurehead). I'm starting to see the GNU boat being sabotaged, though, so I might be forced to abandon my compromised vessel and build a new 3-clause ship.
Gentoo is honestly the best of both worlds; linux compatibility, tons of applications, can be rebuilt from source, and a version of ports that doesn't suck. Their steadfast refusal to adopt systemd is pretty much icing on the cake at that point.
As of late i have come to loath the user/developer distinction.
Any user is a potential developer given time and access to tools.
But as of late there has been more and more an attitude that developers has to go out of their way to protect users from themselves (user).
Thus you get the likes of ChromeOS where the default setup is highly restrictive. And flipping the "developer" switch either way wipes the device clean.
Thus there is a very big mental step to go "developer", rather than start out small with some scripts (thus getting familiar with code logic) and perhaps move on from there.
I always preferred the BSDs on the server anyway, systemd was just the final nudge I needed to get me to run it on my dev box (it actually makes things simpler anyway, I was not relishing the thought of having completely different init systems on my dev box and servers).