As a system administrator, the idea of a 'kitchen sink' init system terrifies me. I would need exceptionally high confidence in its authors and design principles before allowing it to run as root on my systems and depend on it to boot even to single user. I wouldn't even invest much time enquiring into this, if I knew I could manage with something simpler having less scope for security/reliability bugs.
OTOH I would be much more forgiving if this were being used for, say, employees' own desktop machines in a protected corporate IT environment. Lots of systemd's features seem particularly convenient for that use case. And security is enforced in other ways there (the only people with access at all, know they risk getting fired for trying to escalate privileges or DoS). Adopting systemd may have been much simpler if it had been separate from and launched by the simple init, starting only the services that have unit files because they really require its functionality. If no installed software on that system needs it, it wouldn't even need to be installed. But otherwise I think there are GNU/Linux users who want the choice of using systemd or being able to use something else. Preferably without having to switch a different distro or third-party derivative. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
