Comment by dijit
7 years ago
The warnings for #1 were clear. Nobody wanted to hear or heed them. I have little sympathy for those that adopted it despite many people begging them (distro maintainers) not to.
7 years ago
The warnings for #1 were clear. Nobody wanted to hear or heed them. I have little sympathy for those that adopted it despite many people begging them (distro maintainers) not to.
I do not think that there were any clear warnings that you should avoid using systemd because it's good software that might stop being developed soon.
I also don't think avoiding using systemd solves the problem. My preferred alternative to an abandoned systemd is a well-developed systemd, not sysvinit.
Yeah, I'm also not a fan of systemd, but if there's something I dislike more, it's plain sysvinit. I _almost_ prefer the old BSD style "just a bunch of hand-rolled scripts," at least that one has you feeling special as you make a mess of it.
>because it's good software that might stop being developed soon.
Having looked at the code. Calling it good software is a dubious proposition at best.
As mentioned in another comment. There are other init replacements that are seeking to solve the same issues as systemd. I bet you can’t name them though since they were never properly evaluated.
Of all the standard anti-systemd talking points this one is one of the most puzzling rejections of reality. Every major distribution reviewed the landscape. Look through https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd and all of the votes, countless threads, etc. You can disagree with the conclusions but it’s just absurd to say that people weren’t aware that there were alternatives.
4 replies →