[ale] systemd or not

[James Sumners]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Paul Cartwright <pbcartwright at gmail.com>
wrote:

>  found this on the fedora list, where they are also hashing out systemd...
>
> http://boycottsystemd.org/
>

All of that is awesome. But point #10 says exactly what I've been saying
this whole thread, just in better words:

"10. systemd's complicated nature makes it harder to extend and step
outside its boundaries. While you can more or less trivially start shell
scripts from unit files, it's more difficult to write behavior that goes
outside the box, what with all the feature bloat. Many users will likely
need to write more complicated programs that directly interact with the
systemd API, or even patch systemd directly. One also needs to worry about
a much higher multitude of code paths and behaviors in a system-critical
program, including the possibility of systemd not synchronizing with the
message bus queue on boot, and thus freezing. This is as opposed to a
conventional init, which is deterministic and predictable in nature, mostly
just execing scripts."

i.e. it gets in the way.


>
> as I asked before, who runs *BSD, or is it even worth looking for a
> desktop system that doesn't run systemd..
>

Technically, I use a *BSD system that doesn't use systemd, but it does use
something just as annoying -- launchd. If I were to switch back to using
FOSS for my daily desktop needs (it's possible), I'd give FreeBSD or
OpenBSD a chance.


-- 
James Sumners
http://james.roomfullofmirrors.com/

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological
personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the
corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a
condition to which they are quickly addicted."

Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)
CH:D 59
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20140909/6db47f7d/attachment.html>