Potentially this means that Fedora and CentOS stream do not get timely updates implemented in RHEL.

Canonical must be throwing a party, and I bet SUSE is not hating it either

    • Wr4ith@lemmy.worldEnglish
      172·
      1 year ago

      I mean a core issue is that it doesn’t adhere to the unix principle of do one thing and do it well. Aside from that it essentially creates a middle layer where things can happen without you really knowing it’s happening. If you haven’t I’d suggest running a couple of different init systems to see what I mean.

      I’m ambivalent, I like systemd because it’s convenient, but I also like openrc because it’s simple.

    • sarsaparilyptus@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
      84·
      1 year ago

      I don’t like systemd. Reasons:

      • broad scope and lots of dependencies are more or less the exact opposite design philosophy of *nix

      • putting too many eggs in one basket intrinsically increases the attack vector and also decreases stability

      • bloated

      Most importantly:

      • Gives Red Hat i.e. IBM too much influence over Linux
      • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        A specific design philosophy that is adhered to means the software has greater interoperability, reliability, and maintainability. When you are criticising something that adheres to a design philosophy, communicate how it’s adhering to that philosophy to it’s own detriment.

    • eltimablo@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      They see all the other stuff that gets packaged under the systemd name and assume it’s non-optional. While many distributions do, annoyingly, ship the auxiliary packages like resolved by default, they’re not required if you just want to use the init system, and honestly they kind of strike me as an attempt to supplement or replace some of the incumbent components of your average distro.

      Systemd-resolved can suck my whole grundle, though.