Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd architecture

Re:Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd archi... by ncraun on Sunday October 11, 2015 @03:45PM (#10370642)

Very interesting article, refreshing as well to see a criticism of systemd based on technical details. Unlike most other criticisms of systemd, this author does not resort to personal attacks and insults against Lennart Poettering or fear-mongering appeals to tradition. I still think systemd is an improvement over the previous sysvinit, but the author seems to have found some real conceptual flaws with systemd that are somewhat unsettling.

I hope this article can start some actually useful conversations about init systems that do not fall into the pitfalls of FUD and negativity that seem to have surrounded this topic in the past.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd archi... by striking on Sunday October 11, 2015 @03:57PM (#10370680)

My explanation for the lack of technical (rather than political) articles examining systemd is that it's very difficult to wrap your mind around because it carries so many ideas. A quote from an article linked within the linked article:

> All of the above definitions are technically correct. None of them are complete.

> It is thus that debates are doomed to go nowhere, as no one can agree on a single definition of systemd, and the developers have been largely unhelpful in that matter. Vagueness can be a strength, in that it allows for people to divide and conquer, but it is also unproductive and leads to unnecessary bloodshed.

Slowly, surely, people will begin to understand what systemd is. Only then will people be able to figure out whether they want it or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]