On 14.10.14 08:53, Craig Sanders wrote:
At best, trivial benefits ("it boots faster", "you don't need to know about ulimit -c", "you can almost make it do something similar to what you want with some obscure undocumented systemdctl argument") are touted as if they're somehow worth the price of switching from a robust software ecosystem to a software monoculture.
Craig, that is the most powerful argument in favour of sysyemd I've been able to find on the net, and reveals why the developers don't claim any real benefits either.
i used to call that the Gnome Attitude Problem[1], but it seems to be a common attitude with RedHat projects - which is exactly what systemd is, Redhat's weapon against Ubuntu which they'd lost huge market share to. Which is precisely why debian should have stayed out of it and not taken sides in redhat's commercial war with ubuntu....but what happened was that Debian took RH's side and within days Ubuntu announced their surrender.
Something like that is what I could sense just from the unix-hostile sequestration of functionality into an obfuscated fuzz-ball. That systemd's motives are steeped in goals of commercial hegemony can now hardly be in dispute. The only question remaining is haw far we will have to go to get away from Systemdix. Erik -- (5) It is always possible to agglutinate multiple separate problems into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases this is a bad idea. RFC-1925