> AIUI, systemd's goal is to create a platform upon which you can rely upon certain features existing such as a way to make sure your application starts at boot, during a user session, on socket activity, after the SQL server started, or whenever.
This is important because it describes the problem/disagreement: What systemd provides more than anything isn't a technical improvement over previous options but the promise of *uniformity*, which can also be read as a lack of choice. Its goal, or one of its goals, seems to be unapologetically saying "Distributions should not be free to be different in some ways because we know the best answers to some problems and deviation is not acceptable." Usually this level of uniformity is achieved only through standardization (e.g. posix) and consensus, but with systemd it's being attempted sideways: build a new system and push for adoption based on its other virtues, but get uniformity as a result.
It's ultimately not about better boot times, even though that's an oft-sited 'benefit' to systemd. It's also not about better service supervision, because that is a goal which can be achieved in a non-confrontational, evolutionary way, too. It's about *one* way of doing things, which 'presumably' is the best way, because if it isn't then what's the point of all of this?
Posted Nov 28, 2012 10:55 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
[Link]
Lennart has explained various times in various amount of detail the functionality that systemd uses.
Not doing research and making summaries such as "POSIX should be enough" is a bit easy IMO. Especially as systemd is actually has a list of additional functionality which they want from the kernel.
Some changes needed...
Posted Nov 28, 2012 22:58 UTC (Wed) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106)
[Link]
I am not trying to say that POSIX should be enough (it was only an example).
To quote myself: "Usually this level of uniformity is achieved only through standardization and consensus," I'm trying to draw a contrast between how one-true-way things have become adopted and how the systemd-one-true-way things are being spread (i.e., not by standardization, not by first achieving a consensus).
Some changes needed...
Posted Nov 28, 2012 23:39 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
I'm fairly sure that the systemd developers had discussions with multiple distributions about how to go about things. Sure, maybe the niche distros weren't in the discussions, but going and talking to *every* distro maintainer would mean that we'd still be waiting on whether /run is viable.