I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different.
The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces.
Systemd, for all its flaws, fixes some very important problems that init and runit and similar systems left unsolved. It's complicated, but it's hard to argue it's unnecessarily so. We always end up at these tortured bike metaphors or some other garbage. There's a whole website devoted to criticisms and it feels like at least half of the site is devoted to this kind of baseless rhetoric.
As far as I can tell, systemd is a holy war. It's the new editor debate. It's vi vs emacs vs sublime vs atom vs ... down throughout time, with people arguing where the tradeoff between simplicity of execution is more important than delivering a system people asked for.
The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces.
Systemd, for all its flaws, fixes some very important problems that init and runit and similar systems left unsolved. It's complicated, but it's hard to argue it's unnecessarily so. We always end up at these tortured bike metaphors or some other garbage. There's a whole website devoted to criticisms and it feels like at least half of the site is devoted to this kind of baseless rhetoric.
As far as I can tell, systemd is a holy war. It's the new editor debate. It's vi vs emacs vs sublime vs atom vs ... down throughout time, with people arguing where the tradeoff between simplicity of execution is more important than delivering a system people asked for.