Systemd 249-rc1 Released With Many New Features

[aht0]

Well look it up yourself:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_h_lCwAAQBAJ:
"systemd defines itself as a system and service manager. The project was initiated in 2010 by Lennart Poettering and Kay Sievers to create an integrated set of tools for managing a Linux system including an init daemon." (emphasis mine)

And of course: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/:
"systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system. It provides a system and service manager that runs as PID 1 and starts the rest of the system. [...] Other parts include a logging daemon, utilities to control basic system configuration like the hostname, date, locale, maintain a list of logged-in users and running containers and virtual machines, system accounts, runtime directories and settings, and daemons to manage simple network configuration, network time synchronization, log forwarding, and name resolution." (emphasis mine)

The idea that systemd was supposed to be "init" that has somehow outgrown its initial goals is a myth. A widespread myth in some communities, but still a myth. They first released the service manager part (which btw is not at all an "init" in the traditional *nix sense, it's very different in its both purpose and operation) but claiming that they somehow promised "init" and then somehow cheated everyone by creating something different and larger is revisionism. GNU's ultimate purpose has never been to create a C compiler, that was just the first step toward their goal and, similarly, systemd created a service manager but that was also only the first step toward their goal which is to develop a base OS userland environment.

Your book and wiki article are both written after-the-fact (book for example 5 years after initial release). Go try and find arguments and discussions revolving around systemd when it wasn't adapted yet. Especially in various forums.
I recall proponents yelling about the need for "better init" for the most part, bit less about the need for unified system services manager tho that came up and was mentioned sometimes as well.
But when it came to back- and forth arguments, majority of the whine and justification was revolving around "the need for better init" even tho Linux at the time had access to multiple alternatives.

Literally none of the main developers-proponents made squeak about planned massive scope- and feature creep or it might have scared off too many people and made adaption harder.

[F.Ultra]

Your book and wiki article are both written after-the-fact (book for example 5 years after initial release). Go try and find arguments and discussions revolving around systemd when it wasn't adapted yet. Especially in various forums.
I recall proponents yelling about the need for "better init" for the most part, bit less about the need for unified system services manager tho that came up and was mentioned sometimes as well.
But when it came to back- and forth arguments, majority of the whine and justification was revolving around "the need for better init" even tho Linux at the time had access to multiple alternatives.

Literally none of the main developers-proponents made squeak about planned massive scope- and feature creep or it might have scared off too many people and made adaption harder.

So either you are being disengenious or you are again not understanding the difference between the systemd init daemon and systemd the project. That systemd the project was not discussed back then was because that was completely uncontroversial (I mean there already existed hundreds of various dns-, network-, time- and so on- daemons).

The discussion was all about replacing sys v Init with the systemd init daemon so of course zero time was dedicated to systemd the project.

That init was not the only focus of the systemd project was made public from day one. Or rather lets quote Poterring from when he announced systemd for the first time:

More importantly however, it is also our plan to experiment with systemd not only for optimizing boot times, but also to make it the ideal session manager, to replace (or possibly just augment) gnome-session, kdeinit and similar daemons.

[finalzone]

I run daily Debian and Devuan Testing, but it is always Debian that gives me headache and always because systemd...

Last week I would use the cloud space my email provider gives me; you can connect to it through davfs, fine!

The Arch Wiki recommends to create a systemd unit (which is counter-intuitive) for the auto-mount but it also suggest you can add a much simplier line to fstab, and I went to the latter to avoid double work...

And guess what?

Debian doesn't auto-mount the davfs resource because systemd is complaining that is missing something, of course Devuan mounts the resource flawlessly.

Now I am evaluating to move all my desktop machines to Devuan since systemd is becoming utterly complicated and the headless ones to FreeBSD/OpenBSD, I prefer spending my time learning BSD rather than systemd.

Eventually it will happen the same as for pulseaudio, it will be replaced by something, same author, same issues and same destiny.

It's Debian issue in term of configuration.

[Danielsan]

It's Debian issue in term of configuration.

Actually were all Debian misconfiguration but there is something wrong anyway...

[r_a_trip]

It's funny that the persistent systemd detractors don't have any problem with the Linux kernel. Afterall, it was supposed to be a terminal emulator. Talk about scope creep...

[andyprough]

Actually most of the original advertising for systemd revolved around "faster boot times", which is especially funny given that it has been among the slowest to boot for many years.

[F.Ultra]

Actually most of the original advertising for systemd revolved around "faster boot times", which is especially funny given that it has been among the slowest to boot for many years.

That it was faster than sysvinit was one, _one_ of the features that where touted for systemd back in the day. The process management aspect of systemd was what really sold it to everyone.

Again, people should read Poetterings original blog post from April 2010 when he announced systemd: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html then they would avoid making mistaken assumptions like this and others made in this thread so far.

[arokh]

Go try and find arguments and discussions revolving around systemd when it wasn't adapted yet. Especially in various forums.
I recall proponents yelling about the need for "better init" for the most part, bit less about the need for unified system services manager tho that came up and was mentioned sometimes as well.
But when it came to back- and forth arguments, majority of the whine and justification was revolving around "the need for better init" even tho Linux at the time had access to multiple alternatives

Are you seriously referring to (alleged) whine from random forum users to back up your claims?

Actually most of the original advertising for systemd revolved around "faster boot times", which is especially funny given that it has been among the slowest to boot for many years.

Benchmarks or it didn't happen.

Where is all of this "original advertising" you guys are talking about? Your paranoid delusions about systemd's adoption are as ridiculous as flat-earth theories.

[juarezr]

Are you describing an init system or a cargo ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal, Michael? Sounds almost "bloaty".

Not yet!!!

When they will announce that they got `systemd-messeger`for replacing Tik-Tok, than one can start worrying about it.

[jacob]

Not yet!!!

When they will announce that they got `systemd-messeger`for replacing Tik-Tok, than one can start worrying about it.

Actually if they announce some free/open source software to replace Tik-Tok it would be a very good thing IMO.