• MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I didn’t know much about Linux when Systemd was adopted by Debian. And how would I make myself loud enough for people to notice? I still don’t have the technical knowledge to completely grasp the operating reasons why people chose it, all I know is that systemd was meant to be an init system, and now it is no longer just an init system. It’s in things it shouldn’t be in. I’m sure people worked hard on it but one program edging out general alternatives shouldn’t have been the way of development

    • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      You don’t know the details of why it was chosen, yet you complain about people with obviously more knowledge on these topics having chosen it… reminds me of science deniers.

      • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        All I’m saying is that it shouldn’t have gone beyond being an init system. Is it so hard to understand that one might want one application to do one thing and do it well?

          • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Your opinion is that systemd is objectively better being more than an init system?

            I prefer my software to work as single units which can communicate using standard, agnostic technologies to one another, not be a gigantic binary blob which is too hard for even some of the most brilliant people in the community to understand

            • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s not even a single binary blob. Shows your competence around this topic. Feel free to continue rambling and whatever without knowing anything about it.