On Lu, 23 mar 20, 13:12:02, Dan Ritter wrote: > > 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. For me there's also a clear benefit to having everything well integrated, with the same configuration file format, similar concepts, etc. And why should I install a "full" network configuration program, DNS resolver, ntp daemon, etc. when the systemd tools already do what I need? There is probably also the philosophical question of "loose" versus "tight" integration. In my opinion "loose" integration is better in theory, while "tight" integration is more successful in practice. Just look at the most successful projects in the FLOSS ecosystem: GCC, Emacs, Vim, X.org, Linux, LaTeX, (neo)mutt, GNOME, KDE, GIMP, Firefox, LibreOffice, Kodi, etc. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature