GNOME and/or systemd
Posted Nov 2, 2012 17:13 UTC (Fri) by khim
In reply to: GNOME and/or systemd
Parent article: GNOME and/or systemd
You are comparing (again) apples and oranges.
replacing this with a tightly coupled set of tools that between then try and do everything just doesn't work. Commercial vendors who want to take over your entire system and have spent billions on software development haven't been able to make it work (Sun, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Novell, Apple and others have all tried at different times)
Actually at least couple of these (Apple and Microsoft) are fine. And on desktop they are winning. Microsoft also wins on SME's servers!
Why? The answer is obvious: robustness vs repairability. In the "professional" environment (where repairability is king) "loosely coupled collection of tools that each do one thing and do it well" works fine because there are people who can fix it - and it's easier to fix small thing which does "one thing well". When you move in the direction of unmaintaned devices you see only monolithic solutions - because they are more robust and there noone behind the keyboard who can fix them!
Think set-top boxes: people are proud that there are so many linux-based ones, but they violate "do one thing and do it well" pretty severely - you can not introduce tighter coupling then busybox's one!
Now, you may argue that even with busybox there are pieces which can be disabled and/or replaced. Sure, but systemd is designed in the same way so what's the difference?
If Linux wants to win on desktop then something like systemd is strict requirement, not an option! Now, on server… I'm not sure if it's good enough or not, but if it's somehow not good enough then it's simpler to fix it rather then fight it.
to post comments)