General Question: why does debian use systemd
Correct me if I'm wrong, but debian aims to be the most "unix like" GNU/Linux right? And part of that over methodology is to have one program do one task, do it well and play well with other programs?
And systemd is very inverse to this method right? Anyhow, just curious. |
a bunch of them where all sitting around drinking beer, got super drunk, then one of them spoke up and said, lets go systemD and they all agreed?
big dussness made them do it. cuz someone felt it was time for a change just like X11 is a changin' Come gather ’round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You’ll be drenched to the bone If your time to you is worth savin’ Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin’ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Anyways, the change to systemd was discussed for more than a year on the Debian developers mailing lists, there where Wiki pages made for information and in the end the Debian technical committee voted in favor of systemd. No conspiracy, not "we do it just for the change", if you are really interested in the reasons and discussions look at the Debian mailing list archives. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
This article seems to have a pretty good summary of why Debian moved to systemd: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ge-since-1993/
|
Quote:
|
without wanting to branch too far from the original post...I am assuming that in the fullness of time someone can fork systemd? Or parts of it? I gather the problem with the latter is the all encompassing nature of the development. I think where I am heading is that it can be spun in a slightly different direction should that be desired?
Cheers |
Quote:
|
All decisions are made by weighing up the costs and benefits of each choice. Debian's developers obviously decided that the benefits of adopting systemd outweigh the costs, despite reservations at those costs. If at any point the costs look like outweighing the benefits, they can always fork the systemd project (but that would be a decision in itself, with its own costs and benefits).
Frankly, I'm not a great fan of the project, but purely on principle. So, until it actually starts negatively affecting my work experience, which it hasn't done to date, I'm going with the flow. |
There seem to be a lot of cases where the complicated is preferred over the simple (UEFI, Grub2, btrfs, systemd) because some people will get some benefit, and those who won't just have to go along! Sometimes it really is progress: I once used an OS simple enough for me to patch it in assembly language. Would I like to go back to it? No.
|
Quote:
In the open source world it is those that do that set the direction, simple as that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 PM. |