Re: Buster without systemd?
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 23/03/2020 15:15, Michael Howard wrote:
> > On 23/03/2020 14:28, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:37:47 -0400
> > > Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
>
> I know it's a sensitive subject, and I really don't want to upset the list,
> there's been enough of that already, but why are some people so afraid of
> systemd?
Nobody, to a first approximation, is afraid of systemd.
> I ask the question in all innocence, purely to understand whypeople seem to
> want to jump through hoops to avoid it.
systemd started with a good idea: let's make an init system that solves
the problems of sysvinit. They then proceeded to ignore the long
history of people writing software to do that, and chose:
- a heavyweight implementation
- written as a series of executables that interlock with each
- which try to handle:
- process 0 init existence
- system startup and shutdown
- daemon start, status check and stop
Everything above this line is generally agreed to be the
province of an init system. Systemd also wants to take over:
- system logging
- network interface configuration, including DHCP
- DNS resolver selection
- network time protocol
- cron
- login management and authentication/authorization
- setup of virtual machines
- package management
I see the attitude of most people as being "I don't care, as
long as it works." That's a sane attitude.
The problem is that for me -- and many other people -- there is
a long history of not wanting to change a working system unless
the benefits of that change are clear and worthwhile. I judge
that systemd is less reliable than existing systems, causes
needless chaos, and does not deliver benefits that are not
available from other, less disruptive systems.
Not only does it have to work, it has to work well.
-dsr-
Reply to: