I have a moderately long list of pain points, but the biggest one for me is all those damned dependencies. For the most part, my list is the same as most everyone else who has used it and found it wanting. There's no need to go into detail, as these details can be easily found pretty much anywhere that discusses systemd.
For my own collection of systems, there's only one use that counts: that's me -- and this is a big deal for me. For my needs, both on my servers and workstations, systemd presents a lot of downsides and no upsides. Therefore, I reject it. I would prefer the relatively short-term pain of migrating my systems over the long-term pain of dealing with systemd -- but I rather that I could just continue to use Debian without having to use systemd at all.
The summary is completely wrong. They are not discussing systemd, just whether packages can depend on a specific init system. I thought there was some kind of moderation here?
Yes, and this is really the key point. That there are packages that depend on systemd is the root problem -- it means that it's very difficult to use an init system other than systemd. If I could just select my preferred init system like I can select my preferred DE, then I wouldn't have an issue over systemd at all, since I could just avoid it entirely.
Indeed. Which is why I hate Red Hat with a burning fire of a thousand suns. I stopped using Red Hat for my own systems many years ago, and I am greatly irritated that its influence is so hard to avoid.
You can have your tamper-resistant logs right now, without systemd.
In my mind, this comes down to whether we want a better functioning OS or an OS that adheres to the mindset that I think attracted many of us to Linux in the first place.
I don't think that systemd, on the whole, gives us a better functioning OS at all.
It isn't developers or distro maintainers who hate systemd
I'm a developer and I hate systemd.
Yes, nondevelopers do use Linux on the desktop. I personally know 6 of them.
The systemd problem will force me to stop using Debian, a prospect that I dread for a number of reasons (but mostly because changing all my servers and workstations will be a lot of work). Could it be that this is a sign I might not have to leave? Oh, please let it be so!
Yes, this is a great point. I do care, but in the opposite way that Intel wants me to. Many of the apps I use are native, and all of the apps I write for Android are native. So, I doubt I will ever use an x86 based device. Unless there is some super-special advantage to what Intel is offering, the pain and impact of the change would be too much.
I couldn't care less what processor is in my phone or tablet. I only care if my phone or tablet can do what I want it to do. I suspect that I'm in the majority here. So, Intel, please explain to me why it matters whether my devices contain ARM or x86 architecture?
Fortunately, they are very easy to permanently disable. At least for now.
Now I have to use a voice scrambler for all my phone calls.
The app store lock-in is the primary reason why I won't ever own an iDevice.
That's why apps now have functionality metrics (Firefox seems really big on it for example).
Are you talking about products looking at the functionality that people are using in the field to determine what features to drop or keep? If so, then these metrics are a bit of a plague today, since the assumption seems to be that you can determine how important a feature is by how often it's used. This results in very important, rarely used features getting dropped. (The obvious most recent example is the Windows start menu).
"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
