SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2021

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Rousell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mark Rousell <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 23 Jan 2021 13:27:57 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1063 bytes) , text/html (1485 bytes)
On 23/01/2021 02:20, Yasha Karant wrote:
> I had not heard the history of SystemD in any detail.  What, if any,
> were the software engineering and design justifications for SystemD? 
> I recall some vague mentions of "designs for the future"

Have a look at the SystemD Wikipedia entry which links to the SystemD
home page.

As I understand it the initial impetus for SystemD (as with all the
other competing init systems) was the perception that SysVInit was/is
obsolete or not suitable for modern life. One of SystemD's claimed
advantages over SysV was faster booting. However, in my experience
similarly specced SysV machines seem to boot faster!

It's difficult to say anything about SystemD without it becoming
political/religious but my impression is that the bloat and mission
creep that SystemD seems in many people's views to suffer from (i.e. it
is no longer just an init system) is perhaps less about "software
engineering and design justifications" and perhaps more about mindshare
grab and ecosystem control. I claim nothing; I merely report common
views. ;-)



ATOM RSS1 RSS2