News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The bad side of systemd: two recent systemd failures. Parent comment

Re:The bad side of systemd: two recent systemd failures by digi_owl on Friday December 12, 2014 @06:01PM (#8743245)
And thats the thing. If it was "just a init", it would be just as replaceable as sysv, openrc or runit. But it is not, so it is not. As best i can tell, a major argument for going systemd is that something more user facing (Gnome) depends on a subsystem of systemd, and that in turn requires that systemd is used as init. In other words, systemd as a project is invasive and insidious.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The bad side of systemd: two recent systemd failures by EmanueleAina on Saturday December 13, 2014 @08:26AM (#8745132)
The people that develop GNOME chose to depend on the D-Bus interfaces exported by some systemd-provided services (eg. logind) because they actually solve some problems they were facing with a clean and robust solution. Yet they made sure that the dependency is optional, to accomodate those that for a reason of another do not use systemd.

This means that systemd is not insidious, it's valuable.

[ Parent | on HN ]