First of all, don't read the argument section below. Read OT: Open letter to the Linux World by Christopher Barry instead. He's actually worded it right, and it's much more intelligent than my document.

After that, read Broken by design: systemd from EWONTFIX.

And then read Participating in the [systemd] Debate by Steve Litt.

Then, if you want to catch up to the rest of the debate, read Systemd: The Biggest Fallacies by Jude C. Nelson.

This argument is to be done question/response style using the HTML dictionary term/definition tags. The systemd proponent goes first and the systemd opponent goes second. Reason will be explained below.

What's wrong with systemd?

What's right with it? (The burden of proof lies with the person proposing the change.)

It has this feature which people think they want or need, faster boot times, socket activation, boot time analysis, or other feature.

This is important to know about software: Features are the least important aspect of software. The most important aspects are design, implementation (bug-freeness), documentation, compatibility, and maintainership. systemd fails all of those. If you rely on systemd it is time to make other plans.

What's wrong with the design of systemd?

What is right with it? Intelligence is required to design software, not just being clever or smart. systemd appears to have no design except to be "The glue between applications and the kernel" (page 5 of 85). I think this document was written by systemd's primary programmer, Lennart Poettering. "The glue between the applications and the kernel" means that systemd takes over Linux.

Home, Technology, Linux

Contact