Same replied as your first post: "References needed". Let see if some come up
this time...
systemd also has the problem of taking GNU/Linux closer towards being more
Windowish.
What does it even means?
As an example, one great feature of Unix and GNU has been the low risk of
malware and viruses, and if someone does happen upon one, the damage is
minimized, due to structure of the system.
Will you actually defend the idea that arbitrary Shell scripts are more
secure than a declarative definition of the services to run? That daemons
that can escape any management is good for security? systemd fixes all that
and more.
If something is great, then why not let people and distros, choose to either
use it or not.
Distros chose to use it. For example, Debian's technical committee voted for
systemd first, Upstart second and sysvinit last. Nobody forced the committee
to vote the init system in that order.
If you do not want to use a distribution with systemd, don't. Is anybody
forcing you?
the old timers created the foundation of the systems that we all enjoy.
So, basically, your argument is that 30 year-old software necessarily is good
and should not be replaced for that reason (young developers suck?). I guess
it does not matter that, since then, devices became hot-pluggable (sysvinit
cannot start a service once a deice is plugged), processors became multi-core
(sysvinit does not parallelize), etc. And who needs process supervision? If a
deamon crashes, just do nothing. Anyway, sysvinit cannot do anything once the
daemon has double-forked (as it should).
And you pretend that "all enjoy sysvinit" even if there exists many
alternatives (systemd, upstart, dmd, openrc, initng, openlauchd, etc.) and
that they are all unanimous: sysvinit has fundamental flaws. And, unless you
do not use Trisquel, you do not enjoy sysvinit. Trisquel has been using
Upstart since it is based on Ubuntu (i.e., since 2008). Are you even aware of
that?!
Again, perhaps, more questions should be raised and perhaps, systemd should
slowly be analysed and introduced rather than pushed on the community.
I lied: the choice voted last in Debian's vote was "further discussion"
(sysvinit was right before). Indeed, the topic was extensively discussed. In
the middle of the noise generated by conspiracy theorists that do not seem to
know anything about the init system. That noise made many Debian developers
quit at least some of their tasks. For instance, Tollef Fog Heen resigned as
a Debian systemd maintainer last year ("because the amount of crap thrown
[his] way just becomes too much").
It is laughable, that the original idea behind systemd, was to make it easier
for junior coders and administrators to not have to remember different
scripts or to even learn scripting in the first place, just tell them to type
systemctl start... systemctl enable...
Why is it laughable? Things must be hard, ugly and insecure like a arbitrary
Shell script? Even if there are simple, secure and elegant solutions like a
descriptive language? I guess you then also find better that sysvinit
requires fifteen steps to make a daemon:
http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/daemon.html
Do you choose Brainfuck when you have something serious to program?
