[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Future

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:16:40PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:57:58PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 14:41 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> > > > This blogpost is months old but it makes some interesting reflections:
> > > > http://www.pappp.net/?p=969
> > > It appears to be the most insightful thing about systemd vs the rest of the
> > > world I've ever read.  READ IT, FOLKS!
> > Worthwhile to read, definitely.
> Confirmation bias?

No, it's something in the middle.  Those who dislike systemd say it
exaggerates systemd's claimed benefits, while Joss considers it an attack
as well.  Let's no go there for now.

What makes this article worth reading is that it points out _why_ systemd
is so controversial.

There are two ways to design a system:
* a monolithic well-integrated system, granting features and efficiency at
  the cost of portability and hackability
* the traditional Unix way, with a stress on replaceable tools that do only
  one thing, granting freedom to tinker, using the system in a way not
  envisioned by its creators

Thus, it's not about whether sysvinit, upstart or systemd is better at a
particular job, it's about whether benefits are worth making it hard to


Reply to: