Re:Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?
by jcrites on Tuesday July 11, 2017 @05:34PM
(#14748285)
It was adopted because the maintainers of distributions like Debian examined the alternatives and decided that systemd was technically superior. For example, please see the analysis of systemd and upstart by Debian maintainer and then-Technical Committee member Russ Allbery: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html
Re:Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?
by JdeBP on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @02:34AM
(#14750563)
> distributions like Debian
In fact, only Debian underwent that process. Ubuntu did not. Nor did Fedora.
The Arch process was very different.
Re:Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?
by digi_owl on Wednesday July 12, 2017 @02:04PM
(#14754917)
Well in a sense Ubuntu did by proxy. A big proponent of systemd within Debian works for Canonical, and Canonical had already stated that if Debian switched they would switch.
After all, Ubuntu is basically for Debain what RHEL is for Fedora.
Re:Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?
by horusthecat on Tuesday July 11, 2017 @04:32PM
(#14747800)
> Because Lennart has a lot of pull at Red Hat... We don't need a reinvent-the-world solution like systemd to address the most complained about problems with init.
You work in software right?
You never ever "just" replace a system with an improved feature-alike product, you go apeshit crazy with cool stuff you wanted for the past 5 years but couldn't get approved, until you run out of budget. Duh.
The BSDs have really straightforward to maintain init scripts. Mainly because all the boilerplate junk is hidden in sourced-in files. Runit takes a more advanced approach, but its service files are still simple scripts a few lines long. We don't need a reinvent-the-world solution like systemd to address the most complained about problems with init.