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/