One of the objections that many people do not understand, is that systemd adds complexity. Unnecessary complexity. Boats full, loads full, mountains full of complexity.
Yes, there are things delivered with that complexity. However, as an example, sysvinit is maybe, oh, 20k lines of code including binaries, heck including all core init scripts.
What's systemd? 2M lines? It was >1M lines 4+ years ago.
For an init system, a thing that is to be the core of stability, security, and most importantly glacial, stable change -- that is absurdly complex. It's exceedingly over engineered.
And so you get cases like this. And cases like that, and that over there, and that case over there too. All which could not exist, if systemd didn't try to overengineer, over complicate everything.
Ah well. I'm still waiting for someone to basically fork systemd, remove all the fluff (udev, ntp, dns, timers, restart code, specialized logging, on and on and on), and just end up with systemd compatible service files.
But not yet. So... well, oh well.
Yes, there are things delivered with that complexity. However, as an example, sysvinit is maybe, oh, 20k lines of code including binaries, heck including all core init scripts.
What's systemd? 2M lines? It was >1M lines 4+ years ago.
For an init system, a thing that is to be the core of stability, security, and most importantly glacial, stable change -- that is absurdly complex. It's exceedingly over engineered.
And so you get cases like this. And cases like that, and that over there, and that case over there too. All which could not exist, if systemd didn't try to overengineer, over complicate everything.
Ah well. I'm still waiting for someone to basically fork systemd, remove all the fluff (udev, ntp, dns, timers, restart code, specialized logging, on and on and on), and just end up with systemd compatible service files.
But not yet. So... well, oh well.