I'm sure there are plenty of documents on the web to explain the design 
goals and motivations of SystemD.  I for one very much appreciate many 
aspects of it - it vastly improves the control and introspection 
possible of a system.  But I try to avoid religious arguments on either 
side of this debate.

On 1/22/21 7:20 PM, 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" (evidently 
> including deployment under distributed wide area network type 1 
> hypervisors, and the general issues of distributed wide area network 
> "cloud computing" as a "service") or some such, but in practical terms, 
> I did not understand the need for the massive changes and 
> reconfigurations necessitated by the continued SystemD intrusive 
> deployment.  By comparison, to me this is not the same as the Tomasulo 
> algorithm and reservation stations that are now commonplace on many 
> general purpose CPU architectures and that met (and meets) a real need.
> 
> On 1/22/21 5:20 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:01 PM Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Was Torvalds behind SystemD, etc.?  Just curious.
>>
>> Are you joking?
>>
>> systemd is the creation of Red Hat employee (and professional idiot) 
>> Lennart Poettering. Worst thing that ever happened to Linux.
>>
>>


-- 
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems          720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office             FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                       [log in to unmask]
Boulder, CO 80301                 https://www.nwra.com/