STFU? Anyone can insult, it doesn't make your point stronger.

So have I......so what? When Poettering writes straight code, it's pretty good. I would be happy to have him as a coworker. The problem is when he starts architecting, that's where he lacks skill. He would be wise to read some basic documents on the topic.

Then sometimes he makes amusing rookie mistakes. So that's where he is as a programmer: good code, poor design.

Thanks, I appreciate the concern. I don't make money based on my ability to use whatever software, I make my money designing good software. Although I've spent plenty of time studying systemd, so my career is safe.

btw, that points to the difference between people who like systemd, and people who don't. Those who favor it tend to look at the features, and say they are decent. Those who dislike it tend to look at the design, and say, "that's kind of wonky." A person can hold both opinions, they are not logically inconsistent. Unit files clearly fill a need people have.

I can read code. When systemd writes good code, I'll support it.

Regardless of whether they are starting with open source software, or closed source software........if I ever paid $4.3 billion for some software, I guarantee I would be getting the source for it. If the government pays that much for a system, one of the requirements should be that it ends up open source.

ok, so now I'm interested. You are clearly a strong proponent of systemd (some might even say 'fanboy'). What is it about systemd that you like so much? What are the features that really help you? What inspires your advocacy?

That web page is actually a disappointment. It is more like a list of every feature in systemd, as if it's trying to overwhelm you with data. It is highly unlikely that Debian switched because they liked every systemd feature equally, but that web page doesn't make clear which features they liked. Most likely there was a killer feature that made them want systemd.

And that is true, once you start digging in the forums, you find that they didn't like every feature equally, they liked simplicity of writing unit files over init scripts. That was the killer feature.

I've already linked to pages explaining these, but you obviously didn't read them.

This link discusses it

Exactly lol. Linux only. Not portable. This link goes into more detail.

Lennart actively pushed Gnome to use systemd, the forum threads are still available if you want to find them.

If the init system dictates what logging system you must use, then that's poor design. Also, corrupt binary logs are harder to read than corrupt text logs.

It's full of self-contradictions. This post addresses the point, quoting Lennart with his own words. The "biggest myths" page is an example of what Karl Marx referred to as the dialectic (which to Marx meant BS, rather than an approach to the truth).

There are no good technical reasons. Having a window manager depend on a particular startup manager is poor design, there's no way around that.

I discuss that here. If you think I am misinformed, I will look into it more deeply.

Somewhere he expanded his answer (I can't find where) to say that, "people are using it, so it must have features people want." He doesn't like what he's seen of it, but he understands that it fills a use case people have. That's why he won't completely diss it.

That is the reason Debian adopted systemd. You don't have to doubt, they've been public about their decision: it makes writing init files easier. I've written at length on this topic.

Yes it does. You can't separate logind from systemd (although that would be good software engineering, if they were separable). The systemd-logind API is deeply integrated into systemd. It shouldn't be, but it is.

The problem seems to be that you didn't read any of my posts that I linked to earlier. From what you've written, it doesn't even seem like you understand systemd very well. Yet somehow you are a huge proponent of systemd. I don't know. What do you like about it? That's a serious question.

Here is what Linus himself had to say about it:

They will not invite someone to speak on that, but that is something I'm working on.

In brief, the good:
* Systemd makes it easier for distro maintainers to write startup scripts, which is something a lot of them wanted.

The bad:
* Poor understanding of interfaces by the lead developers.
* Poor understanding of portability by the lead developers.
* Poor understanding of separation of concerns.
* Scope creep (there is no reason Gnome should depend on systemd).
* Binary files are a symptom of idiocy......more specifically, binary/text is not something that should be decided by the init system.

You're sure? That's all you have? The distros are using systemd because it makes writing startup scripts easier. They take up fewer lines. That's about it. It has nothing to do with DevOps.

Indeed, I don't have the resources to do a full survey of DevOps professionals. I can only ask the people I know.

If you are DevOps, or even know of someone in DevOps who uses systemd, I would be interested in hearing your experience. If you're talking from ignorance, then you're boring.

To put this in perspective, consider that if you drive a mile to the store to pick up a toothbrush, you just spent more in transportation costs than it took to get the toothbrush from a factory in China to the store where you bought it. Shipping is really, really efficient.

It's for systemd developers, DevOps, and distro makers.

Of those, I've asked around, and I haven't found any DevOps people who like systemd. It just doesn't fit what they want to do. Distro makers, on the other hand, seem to be the ones who really like systemd (mainly because it saves typing in startup scripts). They're the ones who pushed to get it included in their system.

And of course the systemd developers like systemd.