Comment Re: Yes (Score 1) 716
It's right in their "Why SystemD" document.
I am flabbergasted. The reason Debian does not get corporate contracts is because they do not have a corporate program to provide assurances to customers like Redhat does. It has nothing to do with SystemD.
Redhat is about to lose a largish DoD contract because of SystemD. Debian has removed themselves as an option with this crap. Will my decision hurt Redhat? Individually, no. I will not be surprised if lots of other people responsible for choosing technologies refuse this crap as well. Will it hurt Debian? I was already not using them but now they have excluded themselves. They have limited their own potential growth.
I have quite a few Linux servers under my control. SystemD buys me nothing. SystemD has not caused me any problems in my professional life (yet) but it has caused me numerous problems in my personal life.
In my professional life, I have two services that I would like SystemD to restart when those services die. It does not restart them. Is this a problem? No. It is no different than previous behaviour.
Other than service monitoring, I am unsure what else SystemD is supposed to offer to me. My servers never change hardware, never change networks, never do anything at all other than the two services they provide. Binary logs makes troubleshooting transient boot problems impossible. It never gets far enough to start writing text logs through the other interfaces. I do not even bother to troubleshoot anymore. I have an ISO image that tkes less than 10 minutes to install and make fully functional. Is this the goal of SystemD? To just reinstall like we do with Windows?
Meh. There is no point in discussing this. Some people want SystemD. As a rejection of init, I can understand that position, but it is like worshiping Satan because Beelzebub was too evil. All I can say is, What the fuck is wrong with you people?