I've just read that systemd is already under the umbrella of freedesktop.org. So I guess the answer to my own question is "not necessarily".

Got a "Cool Tool™" that might help my life? I'm interested . . .

https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/

old but helpful:
https://www.linux.com/learn/understa...-using-systemd

You're missing an option...

"It's okay, but it could be better."

A sense of scope and modularization of the package would do a great deal to defuse the freakout over it.

For instance: Journald is necessary, but it is not necessary that it be the system logger. Without it, parallel startup would have to wait on the logger to load and open it's files. It's one of the reasons Systemd boots so fast. But, you can fix this, install your own logger and configure Journald to pass on the system log and set it's mode to volatile. Personally, I do this and Metalog-3 does my actual logging.

I think, in the end... All I end up with is Systemd, Journald, Localed and Logind. Everything else is replaced and I'm happy with that.

As a joke, you may be interested in this brand new coffee cup that says:
It makes your life easier because you never have to clean the cup, it's just there to be overwritten on update.

My opinion is never drink weak Expreso.

This above url is also a good point showing why the biggest (PS4, Mac,...) use derivated *BSD. *BSD is a good operating system that makes sense to be widely used. Besides, the type of License also gives more freedom to companies for using it. *BSD will never have SystemD. Furthermore, since I moved my machines from Linux to BSD, I really understand that having stable system has a great meaning. I would always recommend *BSD* over Linux. In addition, this is also a good point for not having SystemD.

I want to like BSD, but every time I try it I run into a wall on hardware support. Or, most recently, the 35 minute boot time due to some weird translation problem with console text and UEFI. It was like watching a billboard, the text scrolled so slowly and there was tearing all across the screen every time a linefeed went off. Whoever's doing the framebuffer console driver needs to go back to alpha with it.

As for systemd... 1: most bsd is running on servers, why would they need it? 2: I suspect the 3rd parties using BSD as a base don't leave the non-parallel default script based init. Unless booting off zfs it is slow, even on a non-uefi system. The bottom line is the script based init systems were based around a mutli-user system that was rarely rebooted and started few services on boot.

I'm all for staying with the old and reliable. At the same time, I'm not willing to buy a car with a hand crank starter just because it's "old and reliable" next to "them thar new fangled electric gismos." Seriously, some of the folks unwilling to embrace change (some kind, not necessarily systemd), should be living in teepees and starting the fire to cook their dinner with flint and steel, they way they go on about 40 year old applications.

PS: I think I still got a couple of 68k's laying around if you're still stuck on Von Neumann. :D

BSD rocks just like Solaris... :eek:;)

but you can't do either completely free like Blag for eg.

Keep in mind BSD has it's naysayers too. I read a blog a couple of years ago where the author was severly critical of recent BSD development, insisting it was changing too fast and becoming unstable. He went on about how upgrades were breaking systems he had in place for years, upgraded from long retired versions of BSD.

In spite of my ribbing above, I like BSD just fine. But, I see it more as a server OS than general purpose. After all, what happens when you attempt to install any desktop on BSD? Half of the GNU/Linux ecosystem gets installed fist: perl, autotools, readline, and dozens more. The first time I watched KDE installed on FreeBSD I thought, This doesn't look ported, it looks like they're just copying half of a Linux distro on this machine. I mean, after all, it didn't use BSD's build system, it didn't use BSD libraries (libedit vs Gnu readline), it didn't even use BSD's shell and elected to install Gnu Bash. Granted, a lot of that stuff is posix compliant but, it still seems like it installs half a Debian.

Keep in mind, I'm not complaining about BSD. I am genuinely curious, when they are so focused on doing things their particular way, why so much comes over from Linux as-is.

The problem is more about KDE. There were many applications of KDE that have still numerous bug. Krusader was a good example of crash-ful software. Today it is still better, but KDE remains largely unstable.

I believe that it has much more to do about KDE and not *BSD.

*BSD is vastly stable. Many servers run *BSD and *BSD servers are well known for their respected stability.

Mark me down as Could not care less.

I do on occasion run a Debian box but wiped that drive in favor of building OpenBSD night before last, so it doesn't really effect me one way or the other as all my boxen now run BSD.


When you build FreeBSD from scratch you start out with the base system and a terminal. Period.

If the programs you choose to install after that require perl, Linux enmulation, etc. that's on you. Yes, some programs do want to install bash as part of the build, but again, that's you installing what is a third party program.

Personally, I run Fluxbox on all my machines and it's very lightweight with few dependencies:

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cg...xbox&stype=all

Compared to KDE:

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cg...ll&sektion=all

Yes, FreeBSD has the Power to Serve (I have that wallpaper at my site if you're interested, along with a tutorial on how to build a FreeBSD desktop from scratch), but it serves me well as a desktop OS, as does OpenBSD. Just because that person was whining about his outdated system being borked when he tried upgrading it does not constitute that to be everyone's experience.

Myself, I compile my programs from ports exclusively on FreeBSD and that gives me the option what variables I choose to install with it, and with portmaster I can choose not to install everything it recommends. I do a fresh build at every new release and have not once in over 10 years had a failed build or ended up with anything but a rock solid desktop.

Which may not be everyone's experience either, hence the tutorial. ;)

I do my Linux systems from scratch, so I don't have to deal with all the distro decisions I don't like. I choose what gets built and installed and what defaults it is set with. Linux is far less annoying in this fashion. Don't need to access LAN, don't build LDAP, Kerberos & Sasl, and also not have to deal with their constant string of updates.

You means LFS? Really, it is very seldom that people do not rely on a distro. Even Linus himself does use a distro.
Anyhow, even with all compiling yourself, you'll end therefore to install GTK+ and all its dependencies, if you use X11 and other softwares. If you compile Firefox yourself, then, have fun (and lot of time).

Personally, I like the direction OpenBSD is going. While these are not my first OpenBSD boxen, this was the deciding factor for me to wipe my Debian drive and install it on 2 of my 4 laptops, the other 2 running FreeBSD:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/new...linux-windows/


I apologize if that took us off-topic of systemd, but I thought it relevant to the discussion.