----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Loiacono" <jloiacon@csc.com>
The arguments against systemd that I've seen so far:
1) It's different so it's bad. 2) There's a lot of code, there must be some really bad security problems just waiting to happen, so it's bad. 3) It doesn't do things the way we've always done them, so it's bad. 4) The systemd developers are jerks, so it's bad.
Hmmm. It seems that list is missing its most important item.
As an impartial lurker, the primary objection I've seen is:
1. "Try to do everything" software is not optimal, and will lead to heartache.
"Try to do everything *inside PID 1*" is the real problem. It is a problem because it violates "do one thing and do it well", and also because it enlarges the privileged attack surface, as made fun of improperly at 2) above. 3) is not an invalid assertion either, and if you think it is, then your systems are pretty bone-stock. 4) is not a *direct* impeachment of the code, but developers who can't work and play well with others are more prone to produce code which also can't. The Unix design philosophy wasn't made up out of thin air; it is the residue of decades of failures, and you flout it at your peril, and systemd flouts it rather badly. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274