On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
the vast majority of negative tongue wagging regarding systemd is ill informed.
can we skip the ad homina and leave that for the systemd dev fora?
I don't think that it's an ad homina attack, as it's pretty clear that many of the people commenting have not spent a significant time using systemd so many of their comments are based on what they've read on the Internet, not from practical experience with systemd.
does systemd have growing pains? definitely. are some egos involved? sure. can systemd be far reaching? yes, is such reach mandated? no. use the units you want and disregard the rest.
how does this work out in practice? at install, can i choose whether systemd is used for X as opposed for the separate component? can i template such choices for cluster deployment with the usual tools?
I think that Debian's plan to allow multiple init systems (irregardless of which one is default) is a bad plan. The non-default ones won't get any love - at some point they'll just stop working (or indeed, work at all). Allowing choice of components is a good thing at one level (e.g. sendmail vs. postfix vs. exim). I really don't care (and don't really even remeber) which SMTP server is installed by default on my systems because my configuration management system makes sure that the SMTP server that I prefer is installed and configured the way I want it once the system is up and running. For something like PID 1, each distribution should make a choice and stick with it. I really couldn't care what Debian's init system is, as I don't use Debian (never have, at least not when I have had a choice). If Debian goes through with the switch to systemd, they won't gain me as a user as there are a host of other reasons that I prefer something other than Debian (or Debian-derived) distributions. If a group of people fork Debian because of systemd, more power to them. -- Jeff Ollie