Damian Ivanov wrote:
Maybe on Kay Sievert, yes he is problematic (as personality in open source). systemd doesn't not do everything. Under the systemd umbrella are few additional daemons reimplenting a lot of services. If you build systemd with all configuration options enabled you will build 69 individual binaries. These binaries all serve different tasks, and are neatly separated for a number of reasons. At compile time you have a number of configure switches to select what you want to build, and what not.
That developers code stuff that requires systemd is not systemd's fault.
You don't konw that the fuck you're talking about. If the syslog deamon has been removed, then I can't sent logging messages to a standard file handle which can (in the startup script) be sent to the syslog process. Instead, deamons NOW have to call a special logging function in systemd to have anything logged. Thus, now the applications have to be aware of systemd... which then makes systemd NON-REPLACEABLE. haven't the past 30 years of Microsoft's machinations taught you anything about the inherent evilness of "embrace and extend" programming. Systemd is being designed to be a one-way trapdoor, so that, if/when people realize that it's not all it's been sold as being (in fact, not even close) then it will be impossible to replace it without ALSO rewriting tons of other code in other projects. That reason alone makes it stupid for any distribution to adopt it.
You don't like GNOME? Use something else. You have a problem with systemd as init or with some of all the services under systemd's umbrella (logind etc.)? You could develop alternatives for these. You don't want to? You want other people to develop for YOUR personal preferences? This ain't gonna happen. And as upstart is dead from now on and openrc doesn't do the job, let's embrace systemd with all of our heart.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org