This is a good and honest answer. I think that many of the most vocal systemd opponents, whatever their apparent rationalizations, do feel that way. I have the same knee-jerk reaction about systemd, when it comes to _my_ machines - the ones I manage, use and want to control and understand. And I also had the same reaction about udev, HAL, dbus, all the *kit, and more generally all the Desktop Environment things.

Now, when it comes to providing a comfortable environment to regular end-users, especially in a corporate environment, it is another story. Most end-users do want a desktop environment, with all the bells and whistles. It obviously can be done without systemd, but my understanding is that systemd is becoming a better, more consistent platform to build a robust desktop (see the KDE developer blog post cited above).

Whatever we may think of the big DE (KDE, Gnome) developers and of the large distros technical leaders, these guys are smart and knowledgeable, and have spend lots of time and effort understanding systemd before adopting it.

We may just not be the right target for their stuff.

1 members found this post helpful.

you where talking about something is proven to be better,
but there is no prove, there is just your opinion, and all the system that have implemented you prove faild in solving the problems Apple or Red Hat or Google tried to solve.

so instead of just telling stories, why do you not make a prove?
check some of the problems that are targeted and come with a solution, make it testable for others, write a report why it is better, and than there is something more concrete as 'oldschool UNIX neckbeards' blabla


I do not know this, but that you dam everything that is different seems to be obvious

1 members found this post helpful.

well, from a beginner point of view, I don't care about what techniques and tools used by slackware unless they affects it's configurability. I like slackware philosophy and it's KISS procedure which make it a great and stable platform for learning linux. I tried several distros which try to be Windows but still they lag behind Windows in many aspects. so if someday slackware want to kiss off its philosophy maybe I return to Windows or try BSD.

I just thought of this after doing some work today with some other systems, but since things like SMF, launchd, etc. all are init and daemon control systems of UNIX branded distributions, I think I read one of Lennart's blogs where he said systemd was very much aimed at being very UNIX-like or UNIX-derived in design.

However, the old moniker of "GNU is Not UNIX" triggered a thought. Is systemd aiming to make GNU/Linux a true UNIX like Solaris, Illumos, and Darwin/OSX. But to do so wouldn't they need to effectively replace the GNU userland with the systemd userland? It's just a passing thought I had so I figured I'd share.

An interesting article on systemd http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/02...-debian-system

Common sense.

This again? Faster boot times were never a goal, but simply a byproduct. You know that very well, so I have to ask why you even bring it up.
I don't quite get were you are going at here. Cgroups management is done for each and every service, not just containers. But even then, when you say "Proven limited" you admit that there at least partially were problems with that which now are solved.
Really? How do you start a SSH server using named pipes on the first attempt of a connection?
And here you completely loose the path. What has this to do with the question at all?
Also not what I asked about, but anyways, this works in both directions, yes, there was a project that was abandoned, namely Consolekit, because it was replaced systemd-logind for systemd users. But how is it the fault of systemd developers that it needed years for someone to step up to actually maintain it again?
That is funny. I wrote about that also in a previous post, I think even in this thread. The kdbus switch for udev was announced 2014-05-30, and Mr Poettering (admittedly in a not nice fashion) explicitly warned people well in advance that they will have to come up with their own kdbus userspace component if they want to use newer future udev versions. Until now, about 9 months later, there is not a single project that even started with that. How again is this the fault of the systemd developers. Are you seriously blaming them for not writing software for systems they don't support?


All in all, you failed to give a sufficient answer to the question.

1 members found this post helpful.

This what the website says:This is what you say:What really happened is that the KDE developers used openly available research data that was indeed funded by the EU, but they have not received massive funding.

Anyway, whatever happens, Slackware with or without systemd will still be my preferred distro.
P.S.
If Jeff Bridges can't do an Oldham accent, try Kevin Spacey.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yep. Slackware is and always will be my main distro.

1 members found this post helpful.

Even though my "main" distro is (and alwayd will be) Debian, I can't imagine a world without Slackware either.
It's what I'm still(since the very fist alpha releases) running on my most personal desktop/laptop.

For me, Slackware is a full package that never failed to deliver.
Every new release is like a Christmas present that doesn't get boring.

In all fairness, I find those "don't_add_systemd_or_we'll_leave" comments insulting towards the Slackware team.

3 members found this post helpful.

what problems ?
that not everything goes over dbus namespaces is a problem ?
that some people get confused over run levels is a problem ?
maybe that linux is not enough like OSX is a problem ?
what IS the problem ?

and no, i don't damn everything that's different
that's just a out right lie
i do however damn everything that is different just for the sake of being different
even more i damn everybody that lies to present themselves as being better then others
should be obvious from lennarts blog, especially from hes comparison of systemd to sysv and upstart, that he does
(although "30 biggest myths" has way more blatant lies in it)
in short; i damn everybody who think they are better then everybody else, as people that do are usually morons

hence the red queen, as you see the red queen effect is an observation of the evolutionary arms race
it pits the idea that organisms must evolve not only to survive the environment, but also other organisms
if you still don't get it; it's a snarky remark that systemd's goal is to have features just to kill off everything else
why is that bad ? you ask. It's still evolution, progress ! you say
but it's not
the "features" that distinguish systemd from what slackware is today are not really useful

per process cgroup ? to limit a process to arbitrary cpu/memory/network/io percentage ?
(let me repeat that: per process control group, that is one process group)
niceness, it works fine. even for io and network
nice limits the nicer process when another process wants more resources
a good way to limit something without limiting everything else

another example; i can now compile with -j whatever, that i couldn't do a few years ago
progress in the design of the process scheduler made it possible for me to do whatever without killing interactiveness
(automatic process grouping, if you wanna google)

nice leads to a good explanation of actual progress in linux
(that many overlook when all they are bombarded with are "features")
you know about KDE's nepomuk ? the thing that everybody curses about that it makes their computer unusable ?
let me introduce you to something put in the kernel as of version 2.6.13
put your hands up for ionice ! *clap clap*
ionice is like nice, but for IO ! wooooow
and it gets better !
as of kernel version `cba to find out` nice sets the ionice automatically !
you get two for the price of one ! (if you order within 15min)
(bdw you need to use the CFQ scheduler, deadline does not support ionice)

you see, that is an example of real progress
and it's not intrusive
it does not limit you, nor change your workflow, nor make you learn the .ini format
just benefits with no drawbacks
and it's not even advertised as being this awsome thing that you must have 'cuz it's features and future and progress
(it is progress, although too old of an idea to be "future")

and there are many many things like that, that are not advertized as disingenuously and aggressively as systemd
they are progress, not this hacked together framework


so please don't try and color my name
i hate things that suck* and people that lie
i find that to be a quality of mine, not a flaw
(edit: "things that suck but are presented as being great"*)

edit2:
"you hate it 'cuz it's different" has been used to discredit people that don't like systemd
and it is a red herring, always has been

If you look into the idea of socket activation a bit, even just look at the proposed nginx implementation someone linked a few posts back, you can see its not for IPC, unless you are using the term in a meaninglessly literal way. I have some issues with systemD and particularly with the way its being 'marketed', if you will, but taking some technical term associated with it and going out on a tangent with it that isn't really relevant doesn't do anyone any good.

This, from the linked slashdot article pretty much sums it up for me:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/02...-debian-system
I think we need to look at the the attempt to portray systemd opponents as backward, resistant to change etc in light of the above. The main benefits of systemd are to redhat and its backers who also benefit from a crippled linux.

6 members found this post helpful.

@fogpipe:

• When you quote, at least provide a link to the source.[1]
• In my opinion, the "retweet" attitude doesn't add any value to a discussion.

[1]EDIT. You did it while I was typing (but not to the comment itself).