[Trisquel-users] Re : Could systemd be an inconvenient on portability?

[lcerf]

Again, cgroups are central to the design of systemd's init. If the kernel  
does not support something similar, then another init had better been used  
(many FreeBSD people are not happy with sysvinit, they do not want to  
implement cgroups, so they consider porting launchd instead:  
https://github.com/freebsd/openlaunchd). User programs can implement a  
fallback in case systemd is absent. That is what GNOME did. Now, obviously,  
that is additional work that smaller project may not want to do in the long  
run. But, like I wrote: "should GNU/Linux never take advantage of the most  
advanced features in Linux (such as the cgroups) because the less popular  
kernels (BSD, Hurd) do not have them?".

Well, that's just speculation but, would that be the best way to aboard the  
problem considering what I wrote above? In the short-mid time maybe, but what  
about in the long run?

In the long run, cgroups could enter the POSIX specifications.