systemd 249-rc2 Released With New "ConditionOSRelease" Directive

[phoronix]

Phoronix: systemd 249-rc2 Released With New "ConditionOSRelease" Directive

Earlier this month systemd 249-rc1 arrived with a variety of new features and improvements. Now for closing out the month is a second release candidate...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=systemd-249-rc2

[doomie]

systemd shaping up to be a pretty good OS

[kpedersen]

systemd shaping up to be a pretty good OS

Indeed. However I think I will be sticking with UNIX and GNU/Linux for the foreseeable future. I wish it luck!

[lumks]

Indeed. However I think I will be sticking with UNIX and GNU/Linux for the foreseeable future. I wish it luck!

You seems to not understand. systemd is Linux only. So your systemdOS will have eaten Linux. Whehehehehehe. Good luck with GNU and the rounding errors OSes.

[Aryma]

so this thread will get how 100 comments how bad systemd is like always

stop this bs we already now there who like it and people who hate it so move on

[Wingfeather]

Child slavery, arranged marriage, systemd, rape, corruption...

Wooooow. Just wow.

[waxhead]

There are many things in the world that some people like but really shouldn't exist. Child slavery, arranged marriage, systemd, rape, corruption, etc. I think the world should solve these issues rather than just ignoring them and moving on.

But, like I said. I wish systemd/Linux well. I will just be sticking with GNU/Linux and BSD because I accept that the UNIX design is the winning formula compared to other architectures.

Not sure I agree with your logic. The UNIX philosophy of do one thing and do it well is all nice and correct, but that one thing may be a rather complex thing. Just look at the kernel for example. It does one thing - being a operating system kernel - and it does it well.

systemd in this case is the next step up , it is provides the basic building blocks for a "Linux system" which is still one thing , albeit a complex thing. For what it is it does it's job quite well, especially since there is no other alternative with the same feature set and simplicity.

I personally have a lot more trouble with modern GUI's than systemd, and quite honestly - I don't use BSD myself , but wish all the variants well. After all it is nice to have an alternative in case something totally goes the wrong way. Actually I think Minix 3 get a lot of things right. Performance it out the window, but the system itself is a rather clever design.

[kpedersen]

systemd in this case is the next step up , it is provides the basic building blocks for a "Linux system" which is still one thing , albeit a complex thing. For what it is it does it's job quite well, especially since there is no other alternative with the same feature set and simplicity.

If you don't mind me using your phrase, "basic building blocks" is not one thing. The 's' after blocks suggests that there should be more than one. So for example an init system and a network system are two that come to mind. Systemd merges these two together in a really bizarre way best summarized as a "modular monolith". These modules cannot perform their task on their own without the rest of systemd. This loses a lot of the flexibility and benefits of a UNIX design.

Wooooow. Just wow.

Heh, OK, OK, I admit I was trolling a bit. Forgive me, I couldn't resist fitting systemd in with those others like that! It was a bit bad taste admittedly.

[waxhead]

If you don't mind me using your phrase, "basic building blocks" is not one thing. The 's' after blocks suggests that there should be more than one. So for example an init system and a network system are two that come to mind. Systemd merges these two together in a really bizarre way best summarized as a "modular monolith". These modules cannot perform their task on their own without the rest of systemd. This loses a lot of the flexibility and benefits of a UNIX design.

I don't mind at all , and I am sure there is a lot of opinions about what you just said, but if we are to look at the very basics here one might argue that network is such a integrated part of a modern (and old) UNiX-like system anyway so that it makes sense to integrate that bit. Socket activation is (or was at least) one of systemd's "killer" features. While I agree very much with the modular approach to things you can actually sometimes reduce overall complexity by adding some complexity in one or several smaller modules. GUI toolkits today are almost complete operating systems by themselves with graphics, sound, network, schedulers, input and who knows what , yet only a small minority of yells about that.

For me systemd (still) solves more problems than it creates. For example setting up a btrfs scrub and balance operation that will not conflict with each other is a breeze... well alright, not a breeze perhaps , but still easier than cron + scripts...

[intelfx]

If you don't mind me using your phrase, "basic building blocks" is not one thing. The 's' after blocks suggests that there should be more than one. So for example an init system and a network system are two that come to mind.

Exactly, these are blocks. Separate building blocks, and the mentioned principle applies to each.

Systemd merges these two together in a really bizarre way best summarized as a "modular monolith". These modules cannot perform their task on their own without the rest of systemd.

They can, you're wrong.