"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." - you mean configuration files, not startup scripts. That may or may not be the distros reasons for it but i doubt it. I'm sure they have the staff capable of taking a bash script, copying it and changing a line or two in it for it to work in sysvinit if they wished to,
The problem seems to be that the systemd-opponents really don't understand how Open Source software works and being developed, something that requires coordination, and positive contributions with either code, documentation, or money.
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.
"I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are details, not big issues."
In brief, the good:
* Systemd makes it easier for distro maintainers to write startup scripts, which is something a lot of them wanted.
* 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.
I'm sure that if a significant number of credible DevOps (and not the few trolls that make the most noise based on lack of knowledge) voiced valid technical reasons not to use it, Redhat et al would have dropped it.
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.
"Of those, I've asked around, and I haven't found any DevOps people who like systemd." - maybe your circle of devops is very limited in number.
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.
We have an existing and quite inexpensive container ship network.
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.
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.
This chemical makes the feed more effective, and more of the nutrients gets digested by the cows.
If that's true, then the bovine nutritionists at the dairies will already be considering it. They take efficient feeding very seriously.
Last year I had one idiot ask to put the phone system he was sometimes called out to work on onto the internet with telnet access - with no password!
Has there been a break for the PS4 yet, or a break for Blu-Ray or BD+?
The big question is: why haven't the telcos moved home / small business over yet?
I asked the owner of an ISP that question. The answer was basically, money. The transition will cost money, and there is zero upside to spending that money before you have to.