Comment on systemd has been a complete, utter, unmitigated success
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 20 hours agoSo red hat somehow “shot the competition” (Microsoft?) but also is willfully running Linux by deciding to adopt systemd in order to replace the steaming pile of horseshit that is sysvinit. A move that was extremely successful and led to a much more robust base for today’s Linux systems in retrospect.
Or was it lennard poettering (who has a second job as the antichrist) who “shot the competition” by jumping in bed with red hat and/or IBM leadership to make them not consider other init systems. (Also to ruin Linux or something despite, and I repeat myself here, the move to systemd being a great success in retrospect)
Is it perfect? No, TeX is the only software that is. Is it better that we just went with one init system for most distros to leave the dark ages of sysvinit as fast as possible? 100%.
badgermurphy@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Bro I’m not making a single claim about the merits or flaws of systemd. I’m talking about the huge infighting and strong arming that went on back when it came out. I had an LTS server back then and just had my popcorn out to watch, since I don’t have the programming expertise to weigh the pros and cons of init systems at a philosophical level.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 6 hours ago
You missed the point: I quoted and linked to contemporary decision making because it illustrates that there’s no “strongarming” necessary if something is the only game in town.
Sysvinit was no longer doing the trick, Upstart wasn’t architecturally sound, OpenRC wasn’t a serious contender at that point either: they could adopt systemd or wait for a few years in case some alternative would come along.
That’s why your framing doesn’t make sense to me: it implies that there was some sort of choice that Big Init was trying to stack the cards for, but there wasn’t at that point.