systemd: please stop trying to take over the world :)

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:

> 
> Slide 14:
> "systemd is an Init System"
> "systemd is a Platform"
> 
> systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
> Carrier? More to the point: Lennart can call his program whatever he
> wants, even Nuclear Submarine. The point is: some people might disagree
> with having service management tool with Napoleonic aspirations. For
> one, I do!
> 
> 
> Slide 50:
> "Shell is evil"
> "Move to systemd, daemons, kernel, udev, ..."
> 
> Again, shell, a tool which endured for 40+ years, is suddenly "evil".
> I don't think this being the consensus.
> 


I think this is the crux of the argument. It seemed to me one of the
goals of systemd was to stop having a wide variety of possible
mechanisms to do similar things. To intentionally remove the ability to
swap out components. Part of that was to make things faster, part of it
was to make them "simpler" (for uses of simpler meaning fewer options).

The trick is whether or not you agree with that as a set of goals.

If you do not then systemd is not fun and not for you.
If you do then you are happy with it.

I think the problem I've heard repeatedly is that a fair number of
people are surprised how the decisions about those goals were made.

I also think that as it becomes more well known: the lack of flexibility
in specific places in systemd will be patched out/around.

So, the items you're complaining about will become options or
configuration items when people with significant-enough clout demand
they change.

It happens all the time. 

Some folks adapt to how things are and work with what their given. 

Others take out a baseball bat and beat things until they work and send
their patches along.

Others still take out a checkbook and start writing checks  or
alternatively, refrain from writing those checks.

-sv