On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 07:08:55PM -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: > In other words, I think systemd exists in many ways to make up for the > limitations of a monolithic kernel approach. In that way, it makes > sense, but I think we could do better with a different fundamental > infrastructure.
One way to view it is that systemd does a lot of 'magic'. I.e., there are internal assumptions that are not that clear. A black box. For most users, or use cases, that is fine, but when it comes to running robust and reliable systems you want to define a system with its services as a reproducible 'expression', much in the spirit of Guix. That is where shepherd comes in. Systemd reminds me too much of Microsoft Windows. Things just happen. Pj.
