[Discuss] systemd explanations

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)]

On 2/17/2016 9:50 PM, IngeGNUe wrote:
> http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

Right. Poettering felt the need to write ~4400 words to debunk "a few of
them" about systemd. Where he numbers "a few" at 30.

I call that trying too hard.

> I haven't forgiven the decision to have binary logs, but apparently
> systemd follows the unix way?

No, it does not, and Poettering admits it in his "debunking":

> Myth: systemd is a feature creep.
> 
> Well, systemd certainly covers more ground that it used to. It's not
> just an init system anymore, but the basic userspace building block
> to build an OS from, [...]

The Platonic Ideal of the UNIX way is many small tools, each of which
does one thing or a small number of related things, loosely connected
with shell scripts. systemd does not work this way. The systemd way is
more like Microsoft's way with service components tightly coupled to the
services controller, the -- singular -- building block for the entire OS.

-- 
Rich P.