Systemd Rolls Out Its Own Mount Tool

[cjcox]

Here we go, systemd haters incoming.
If systemd is so bad, why do all major distributions use it instead of moving on without it ?

Since the vast majority of commercial supported (reliable, dependable) kernel and enterprise software development is from Red Hat, do you really think there's much of a choice?

Obviously you can go "off grid" and do your own thing, but guess where 99% of the support will be.

The question isn't "if systemd is so bad"... in fact it's not even a question. The major influencers of the kernel and common core user space subsystems have decided on systemd... you can go your own way if you want to support all of that....

If tomorrow Red Hat drops systemd, then we'll all drop systemd... simple as that... Feel free to flame that, but systemd isn't a "great" replacement.... it promises greatness, and delivers naiveté.

[sdack]

Since the vast majority of commercial supported (reliable, dependable) kernel and enterprise software development is from Red Hat, do you really think there's much of a choice?

Obviously you can go "off grid" and do your own thing, but guess where 99% of the support will be.

The question isn't "if systemd is so bad"... in fact it's not even a question. The major influencers of the kernel and common core user space subsystems have decided on systemd... you can go your own way if you want to support all of that....

If tomorrow Red Hat drops systemd, then we'll all drop systemd... simple as that... Feel free to flame that, but systemd isn't a "great" replacement.... it promises greatness, and delivers naiveté.

I am not happy with this situation either, nor am I a fan of RedHat, but the fault isn't with RedHat. They are a company and they need to follow a survival strategy to stay in business just like every other company. This certainly has an influence on what they can and are willing do for open source and it obviously cannot align with everybody else's interests either. This shouldn't be any news.
But here is the thing, just because they appear as the only ones currently doing something can one not blame them for their contributions. The lack of choices isn't the fault of those who are offering choices and therefore shouldn't be blamed for not offering the "right" choice.
The good thing about open source is that when RedHat drops systemd nobody needs to stop, but everyone can continue with it. If your fear is the distributions are getting depended on RedHat and eventually incapable of thinking for themselves then you are probably wrong. They are being lazy and used to sucking up packages from everywhere around and not having to do much on their. Distributions jumped onto the systemd train, because it is simply convenient and because it gets a lot of traction (and it gets people thinking, too). Just wait for the time when people create forks from it, then the situation gets another twist altogether and have enough popcorn around.

[aht0]

Actually I wonder how big is the difference in user bases between RHEL 6.x and RHEL7..

[GreekGeek]

Systemd: The Biggest Fallacies @ https://judecnelson.blogspot.in/2014...fallacies.html

[edmon]

You have no idea what you're talking about.
systemd and svchost has *nothing* in common.

Repeat after me:
systemd is a set of Linux base services. Its main aim to is replace *all* the difference tools and utilities that make Linux base-system tick.
Its not (only) an init system (initrd).
Its not (only) a service wrapper ('svchost').

And I for one, as someone how dropped close to 5,000 LOC when I dropped initrd and moved to to systemd, welcome my new Linux based system overlord.

how much "set of base services" is different from "service wrapper" it your opinion? thanks.

[gilboa]

how much "set of base services" is different from "service wrapper" it your opinion? thanks.

Nearly nothing in common.
svchost helps convert DLLs into WinNT services.
Base services handles: Device configuration, storage mount, network configuration, system and user services, login, etc.

[starshipeleven]

Actually I wonder how big is the difference in user bases between RHEL 6.x and RHEL7..

RHEL adoption is unrelated to systemd anyway. Those who choose the OS aren't the sysadmins.
Otherwise there is no explanation for the continued existence of Windows Server.

[aht0]

RHEL6 is non-systemd, RHEL7 is with.

Possible. Then I've seen quite a lot of posts in various forums where people state that their organization/company is going to stick to RHEL6 until 2020 and see what's going to happen with it. And decide then.

[starshipeleven]

RHEL6 is non-systemd, RHEL7 is with.

Guess what? I knew this already.

Possible. Then I've seen quite a lot of posts in various forums where people state that their organization/company is going to stick to RHEL6 until 2020 and see what's going to happen with it. And decide then.

That's the standard lifecycle of servers. They are born with an OS, and they die with that OS, many years later.

[gilboa]

Guess what? I knew this already.

That's the standard lifecycle of servers. They are born with an OS, and they die with that OS, many years later.

Large RHEL users usually choose their primary EL version based on internal and ISV support cycle considerations. I doubt that any of them really care about systemd (or-lack-there-of).
By the time RHEL8 hits, I doubt that *anyone* will even care. (The lack of any major systemd-less Linux distribution is good indication to that)

- Gilboa