systemd is crap
 

Why is there a big push by the big distros for systemd when it's obscure, unstable and badly documented?

This seems to go against the very spirit of free software, no?

This has been covered at length here recently. Just do a search. Here is one massive thread to get you going:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...le-4175460337/

You are preaching to the converted here. We are not fans of Poettering.

I know this is old and I've read countless threads... i read some of Poettering comments regarding systemd and it sounded condescending to say the least.

It is totally unstable and is trying to take over the role of other packages even before it can do the basic - boot up w/o crashing and to keep the system running w/o crashing for NO REASON!

I just find it real sad that such a decision has been made by Red Hat and forced down the throats of all other distros. Sounds like Animal Farm to me. Criticising M$ and then turning out to be just like them for the sake of profits?

I just hope they'll never release this 'kraken' for real :(

Sorry for the rant.

In DistroWatch Weekly, Issue 532, 4 November 2013 there is an article about this whether or not to take over in Debian as well:

Members of the Debian project, one of the Linux community's largest and longest-living distributions, had a lot to talk about this past week. The first topic of interest is the idea that Debian could benefit from having a new init system. To date Debian has used a more traditional init system to get the operating system from a cold start to a running environment and some people feel Debian would benefit from using a more modern init system such as Upstart or systemd. The suggestion kicked off a heated debate on the Debian mailing lists as people chimed in with their opinions for or against each option. As a result, Debian's tech committee as been asked to vote on the decision as to which direction (if any) Debian will take in the future. While the decision is unlikely to affect desktop users directly, it will impact system administrators and package maintainers who may soon face a new approach to managing services.

Eh,.. sorry man. RHEL 7 will have systemd, supposedly. I can't find anything on the redhat site itself, but the internet is full of explanations of how to deal with RHEL 7 and systemd.

systemd versus traditional start-up, the best comparison I've seen to date:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...8/#post4380082

not going to start another heated debate whatsoever.

I think we all know that systemd does not have much to offer except for slightly faster boot up time.

Everything else is much more complicated in terms of configuration. I do not mind if it's well documented/coded. but try to look at some of the source code. It's really bad... hardly readable. And the only 'documentation' you get is from the 0pointer website. Information are all over the place... it just doesn't make any sense. At least not to me.

I am running systemd v208 for 4 weeks now, and before that 207 and 206.
Didn't had a single crash.

I am running this on slackware.
What I am seeing so far is that even tho it is immature, it does have lots of potential.
currently its still in beta phase imo.
it has passed the development phase.

there is a reason that RHEL 7 is not out yet.
Red Hat is going to use systemd in RHEL 7, so unless RHEL 7 is out, systemd is not 100% stable yet.

The biggest problem is that functionality that are now in other packages will be merged
- ConsoleKit (completly merged)
- Util-linux (some functions)
- udev (completed merged)
- and probably more

I think you'll like to read this...

Instead of starting Yet Another systemd Thread, I recommend that you (and everyone else here...) actually take a step outside lq.org/questions/slackware-14 and do some research.

These posts are embarrassingly uninformed. You say that systemd isn't documented, or that you can only find crap documentation on 0pointer. What? systemd is a freedesktop project and is very heavily documented at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/. These look like posts from early 2011.

I love Slackware as much as the next guy around here, but I've also grown to really like sysytemd because I actually tried it out (and had no problems - imagine that).

Let me quote Slackware Maintainer on that topic:

I have an installation of Arch which uses systemd and it's trouble free. There are lengthy explanations from the Arch devs on their forums which explain why they use it. They seem pretty sold on its benefits, just as there are people who are equally opposed to it here and elsewhere.

I'm not saying anything either way, just that both Slackware and Arch work very well for me.

You know something is crap when the Ubuntu people are opposing it, and the Slackware people are rooting for the Ubuntu people against it.

I agree with Didier's post. I'll worry about it when Pat brings it up :)