PaulNM wrote:
My own personal/technical thoughts have gone back and forth on systemd. However even when I firmly believed that is was the wrong way to go and would cause major issues down the line, it was still clear to me that many people were seriously going overboard.
Could be.
That said, I understand and agree that there are technical downsides as well. For example, there is a little too much integration within systemd itself, however that's mostly a result of the maintainer's attitudes/viewpoints.
Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about operational downsides than technical ones.
Systemd might be the greatest thing since sliced bread - but I've got an operational collection of servers to maintain, that I'm going to have to upgrade eventually - and everything I've been reading just reinforces that I'm going to have to spend days, maybe weeks, pouring through every piece of carefully configured software and make adjustments to all my init routines - and figure out how to keep services running while doing so.
Udev alone caused tremendous hassles a while back. Systemd is sure looking like a nightmare.
It would be one thing if I could reliably continue running systemv-init, add systemd-shim to support packages that require systemd, and deal with everything else as time allows. But that is looking less and less likely to just work.
I find myself looking more and more at either slackware or LFS, or moving to either one of the BSDs or SmartOS - a platform where servers still seem to count.
No matter what, a huge expenditure of time and effort - just to get back to the status quo of normal operations.
Sigh.... Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra