That page has been there for at least a month or two. And being a static page I'm not really feeling it as a movement. I'm not really a fan of systemd or the design decisions behind it but I don't think reacting to it in that way is productive.
I was originally very interested in trying out systemd. Then I started to learn about the approach it seemed to be taking. A replacement init system sounds like it could be interesting and good to play with and get to know. A replacement init system and assorted friends is much, much less welcome. I keep seeing in this thread that these extras are optional but which ones? If the core is actually tiny and just a replacement init daemon then which part has the hard dependencies in Gnome and other places? Whether you're for or against it a nod towards the creeping dependencies in common graphical environments is probably the more honest way to talk about it (unless I've missed or misinterpreted something).
From what I've heard so far systemd began as a replacement init. Then the extras popped up and after other projects became dependent on them we're now at a third stage where Lennart is talking about his real goal which isn't anything to do with init, it's to basically do away with distros. This makes the whole thing look like a long con leading up to a political move. It's a bait and switch and that's not the sort of behavior you want to see from people who want to rewrite your authentication system. To be clear, I don't have a problem with any of the devs working on both init and other daemons and trying to make a standardized environment. But it would look distinctly less shady if they were different projects.
Because as noted above the system standardization is part of the same project, I don't necessarily know what's going on when I see systemd has been added to a distro. And with most of the discussion about it being people frothing at the mouth in one direction or another (yes, pro-systemd people rant too as you can see in this thread), it gets significantly more difficult to track down useful information about it online. This sets the bar for working with this significantly higher because the only way I would ever accept the radical sorts of changes systemd intends to introduce to my systems is if I understood the logic behind the decisions made. "It's new and popular" makes for an exceptionally bad justification in this case.
I was originally very interested in trying out systemd. Then I started to learn about the approach it seemed to be taking. A replacement init system sounds like it could be interesting and good to play with and get to know. A replacement init system and assorted friends is much, much less welcome. I keep seeing in this thread that these extras are optional but which ones? If the core is actually tiny and just a replacement init daemon then which part has the hard dependencies in Gnome and other places? Whether you're for or against it a nod towards the creeping dependencies in common graphical environments is probably the more honest way to talk about it (unless I've missed or misinterpreted something).
From what I've heard so far systemd began as a replacement init. Then the extras popped up and after other projects became dependent on them we're now at a third stage where Lennart is talking about his real goal which isn't anything to do with init, it's to basically do away with distros. This makes the whole thing look like a long con leading up to a political move. It's a bait and switch and that's not the sort of behavior you want to see from people who want to rewrite your authentication system. To be clear, I don't have a problem with any of the devs working on both init and other daemons and trying to make a standardized environment. But it would look distinctly less shady if they were different projects.
Because as noted above the system standardization is part of the same project, I don't necessarily know what's going on when I see systemd has been added to a distro. And with most of the discussion about it being people frothing at the mouth in one direction or another (yes, pro-systemd people rant too as you can see in this thread), it gets significantly more difficult to track down useful information about it online. This sets the bar for working with this significantly higher because the only way I would ever accept the radical sorts of changes systemd intends to introduce to my systems is if I understood the logic behind the decisions made. "It's new and popular" makes for an exceptionally bad justification in this case.
Comment