The systemd haters are right about their complaints, but there's a ton that systemd does right, like making the interface expected of a daemon "Run forever and send output to stdin and stdout" rather than "Double fork and rotate your own logfiles" while also having support for the latter.
> The systemd haters are right about their complaints, but there's a
ton that systemd does right
Yes. A fair and balanced technical analysis of systemd would have to
concede it does a lot of good things, and well - if you subscribe to
its paradigm [1].
My beef was with the disruption and bonfire of social capital caused
by a heavy-handed, undemocratic, vocal group imposing upon others. It
was an ugly episode and seemed to go against all the values I believed
Debian stood for. And it came from all sides. The personal attacks on
Poettering were inexcusable.
[1] I don't. I believe it's a solution that trades away system
security and reliability to get userspace convenience.
Isn't that the "interface" which djb's daemontools, runit, and later s6 also promotes?
Anyway, that question was mostly rhetorical. You don't want to get into the midst of "yet another systemd flamewar" thread (and I don't blame you, neither do I).
Just pointing out that non-systemd alternatives provided the abovementioned interface, long before systemd existed.
It usually paints a better narrative to compare systemd vs sysvinit and ignore the fact that runit predates systemd by 6 years. It makes it substantially easier to dismiss detractors as Luddites scared of new things.
Imagine if Windows 8 came out and people rightly dunked on its many foibles and proponents said it was clearly superior to DOS and people really ought to just learn to love the charms bar and modern UI instead of sticking with their familiar command line interface.
