[ale] systemd or not

[Paul Cartwright]

On 09/06/2014 02:26 PM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 12:23 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
>> Is there anywhere that actually provides a coherent technical
>> argument for
>> why systemd is bad?  So far the complaints I've found online are
>> "I'll need
>> to learn something new", "it's bloated" (ok, true, but so is so much
>> of our
>> software these days), and "don't fix what isn't broken."  (Except, to
>> some
>> people, the status quo is broken.)
>
> The best I've seen is Debian's analysis:
>
> https://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html
>
> That covers systemd 204; we're up to 216 now, but as the README shows
> (and as can be confirmed as indicated in my previous post), systemd
> really only needs 4 dependencies, so a complete, working, barebones
> Linux command-line system (with just the root user) is possible in 5
> packages.
>
> Want multiple users? OK, add PAM. Rebuild systemd and busybox. Done.
>
> Not bad at all. Want to bootstrap a distribution yourself because you
> need something TINY? Systemd becomes your best friend. Especially on
> "semiembeddeds" like the Rπ.
>
 found this on the fedora list, where they are also hashing out systemd...

http://boycottsystemd.org/

as I asked before, who runs *BSD, or is it even worth looking for a desktop system that doesn't run systemd..


-- 
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux User #367800 and new counter #561587