[Discuss] systemd explanations

[Rich Pieri]

On 2/18/2016 8:11 AM, Thompson, David wrote:
> Sort of like the kernel Linux comes with everything all bundled
> together?  I'm not enamored with systemd, but I find argument ad UNIX

This is a non-sequitur. Linux is not UNIX, and whether or not the Linux
kernel follows the UNIX philosophy is of no relevance to whether or not
systemd follows that philosophy.

> philosophy to be pretty weak.  Some of the most useful software I have
> ever used is often accused of violating this philosophy.  I don't
> think the "UNIX way" is the end-all be-all of software design.

I did not mean to suggest that it is. My intent was to describe the
fundamentals of the UNIX philosophy and how systemd does not follow
them. Microsoft's way does have benefits over the UNIX way. Making most
of the OS components a collection of DLLs that are loaded on demand by
svchost allows all of those components to share physical resources thus
reducing overall system overhead.

Which is to say that systemd may have its place but I personally am
reluctant to accept it in part because of Poettering's disingenuous act.
I would be less critical about systemd if its lead developer were more
honest.

Which is not to say that I would be uncritical of systemd, just that my
criticisms would be more focused on the technical aspects.

-- 
Rich P.