More like Alpine or something else without systemd. I mean no shade (well, a bit of shade) since I’ve got Fedora myself. Alpine doesn’t even have glibc IIRC.
I think it is breaking the Unix philosophy, it is an enormous piece of code that does so many different things. My ideal is smaller components with smaller dependencies. When distros or software becomes inextricably dependent on systemd they are then beholden to whichever direction the maintainers take it.
My take on it is somewhat based on “what if.” Other people have some pragmatic discussions on security aspects if you search around.
I’m not a systemd guru, but I do find it relatively easy to work with.
I’ve noticed that a lot of it is actually made up of separate binaries and daemons. Is it wrong or misleading to think of systemd as a collection of utilities that share a common DSL as opposed to a strict monolith?
Is this going to be Arch or Debian?
Debian.
That’s just what I was going to say - that will either be Arch or Debian…
More like Alpine or something else without systemd. I mean no shade (well, a bit of shade) since I’ve got Fedora myself. Alpine doesn’t even have glibc IIRC.
Can you explain why everyone hates systemd
I started and still work in rhel
I think it is breaking the Unix philosophy, it is an enormous piece of code that does so many different things. My ideal is smaller components with smaller dependencies. When distros or software becomes inextricably dependent on systemd they are then beholden to whichever direction the maintainers take it.
My take on it is somewhat based on “what if.” Other people have some pragmatic discussions on security aspects if you search around.
I’m not a systemd guru, but I do find it relatively easy to work with.
I’ve noticed that a lot of it is actually made up of separate binaries and daemons. Is it wrong or misleading to think of systemd as a collection of utilities that share a common DSL as opposed to a strict monolith?