If you check SystemD, its a HUGE step up, which is why everyone is using it now
I think that’s a “winners write history” situation. There were other options at the time that might have been better choices. Everyone uses it now because of Redhat and Debian being upstream to most users, desktop and corporate. I was not surprised by Redhat adopting it (it’s their own product) but Debian was quite the shock.
Yes systemd is definitely a step up from traditional initscripts (oh god). In terms of simplicity, reliability and ease of configuration however it’s a step below other options (like runit). I don’t have distro management experience but, given the problems I’ve encountered with different init systems over the years, I suspect there would be less of a maintenance burden with the other options.
The reason for complexity in computer systems (if we assume basic competence from implementors) is almost always a symptom of different people wanting different things. What feels like bloat to me is a thousand different wishes over several years.
Some architects decide to go with their own view and ignore the wishes that are against it. That might be fine and might be higher quality in some way but will also lead to fewer users which leads to fewer contributors which leads to less polish. SystemD might be complicated but that turd has been polished so much that it’s starting to be indistinguishable from a diamond.
I’m very curious about the downvotes to this one. May I ask people’s thoughts? Perhaps I’m too vague? I can put a bigger story about my experiences with various init systems in production & research if people are interested.
I think that’s a “winners write history” situation. There were other options at the time that might have been better choices. Everyone uses it now because of Redhat and Debian being upstream to most users, desktop and corporate. I was not surprised by Redhat adopting it (it’s their own product) but Debian was quite the shock.
Yes systemd is definitely a step up from traditional initscripts (oh god). In terms of simplicity, reliability and ease of configuration however it’s a step below other options (like runit). I don’t have distro management experience but, given the problems I’ve encountered with different init systems over the years, I suspect there would be less of a maintenance burden with the other options.
The reason for complexity in computer systems (if we assume basic competence from implementors) is almost always a symptom of different people wanting different things. What feels like bloat to me is a thousand different wishes over several years.
Some architects decide to go with their own view and ignore the wishes that are against it. That might be fine and might be higher quality in some way but will also lead to fewer users which leads to fewer contributors which leads to less polish. SystemD might be complicated but that turd has been polished so much that it’s starting to be indistinguishable from a diamond.
I’m very curious about the downvotes to this one. May I ask people’s thoughts? Perhaps I’m too vague? I can put a bigger story about my experiences with various init systems in production & research if people are interested.