From: bent fender <ksusup@trixtar.org> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 07:07:53 -0400 Tue, 15 Aug 2023 22:22:49 -0700 Lew Wolfgang <wolfgang@sweet-haven.com> :
It's perceived by many that systemd is in violation of the UNIX Philosophy, where programs should do only one thing, but do that one thing very well. Wikipedia has an extensive description:
I'm yet to be convinced that any part of UNIX philosophy would be of any interest the the dev(s) of systemd. As far as I'm concerned it's cutting far too wide a swath and if that keeps up then sooner than later the systemd people will be telling the kernel people what time it is and how to do it all. That sounds like an objection over the project rather than the software. I remember the bad old days when you had to edit a file to get something to start/restart on boot, which was not at all package- friendly. SysV init files were better, but the handling of dependencies and failures was ad hoc at best, so systemd is a definite improvement over both. I still get lost when trying to figure out what's going on inside systemd, but that may be a symptom of the fact that it works better; I need to figure things out less often, so I keep forgetting how things work. Too, I find it susepect that some groups or layers in the community offer a choice (see Artix) from three or four inits while others offer only one, now THAT is definitely against everything Linux that ever was (except for the kernel itself). That may have to do with ease of support (just a guess, since I don't know what the alternatives are). A corollary of the Unix maxim of "do one thing and do it well" is that those things need to be orthogonal, and orthogonality also suits package-based distros. systemd seems to play really well with packaged services. -- Bob Rogers http://www.rgrjr.com/