why do we use systemd?

[lee]

David Benfell <benfell at parts-unknown.org> writes:

> I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
>
> 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
> start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.

So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a
really bad idea because it's broken by design --- or should reasonably
be designed differently.

> 2) Or, is it just that systemd is buried underneath an avalanche of
> horrendous documentation and poorly chosen terminology?

You could look at the source to find an answer.  Perhaps it's great ---
but I doubt it.

> To these, I might add a third:
>
> 3) Is systemd simply too large a leap to be wise? Clearly, many folks
> in the distributions are enamored with it; they're all adopting it. As
> is apparent here, some users like it as well (and if we succumb to a
> false dichotomy, well, I'm not all that wild about sysvinit scripts
> either). And a certain amount of the rebuttal to opponents seems to be
> of the sort that we should just take the time to learn it.

I'm not sure what you're asking.  Besides, if we're supposed to learn
it, it should have good documentation and be a good thing first.
Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Let me add a fourth question:  What does it matter?  We're not getting
to decide what will be used.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)