Link to Original Source
1) The only thing that systemd might do faster is boot. Since Linux servers are not booted that often, that is a trifling advantage, at best. Certainly not worth breaking everything that works.
2) Systemd does not always boot faster. Only under certain circumstances.
3) More resource intensive generally means slower on the same hardware. Systemd may boot faster, but it runs slower.
4) There are ways to improve boot speeds without breaking everything that works.
This has been going on for years, and has years more to go. This is a long term strategy.
Why has Red Hat been replacing standard Linux components with Red Hat components, when the Red Hat stuff is worse?
Why isn't systemd optional? It is just an init replacement, right? Why does Red Hat care which init you use?
Why is systemd being tied to so many other components?
Why binary logging? Who asked for that?
Why throw away POSIX, and the entire UNIX philosophy? Clearly you do not have to do that just to replace init.
Why does Red Hat instantly berate anybody who does not like systemd? Why the barrage of ad hominem attacks systemd critics?
I think there is only one logical answer to all of those questions, and it's glaringly obvious.
I think we should get rid of Gnome, and work on MATE, or something like it.
> "Systemd is only an init replacement, nothing more. Nothing to worry about. It's not as if Red Hat is trying to take over Linux or anything. It's not as if this were an embrace-extend-extinguish strategy right out of Microsoft's playbook. It's not as if Red Hat were making Linux less functional and less reliable. Not as if Red Hat is forcing 'standards' that nobody wants (except Red Hat)." Not as if Red Hat is throwing away POSIX, and the UNIX philosophy for no good reason."
Are the red hat shills still posting that?
Anybody still believe that systemd is not about red hat taking over linux?
The systemd OS should not be called Linux. Call it "Red Hat Operating System" or "Pottering OS" or "MS-Windows"
According to some article I saw.
Supposedly, it's a cultural thing. Homosexuality is not tolerated in Saudi.
Can you blame a gay guy for staying in the closet in such a society? Does he really deserve death?
I think Red Hat has been working to monopolize Linux. I think it's been going on for years. Systemd was a huge step towards such monopolization.
Red Hat wants to be Microsoft. Who could blame them? Red Hat is imitating Microsoft in many ways. Systemd is open just like OOXML is open. Red Hat is using it's dominate position to push technologies on people who don't want those technologies.
Pottering has made no secret of being a huge fan of the Microsoft way of doing things, and a hater of the traditional UNIX/Linux way of doing things.
It seems to me that, if you are a fan of the way that Linux is going, you would be happier with MS-Windows, or maybe OSX.
Agree: BSD is a far better server than Linux. More stable, more standard, better engineered.
Also, unlike Linux, BSD is still values POSIX, and UNIX philosophy.
I'm not Trump fan, but it looks like a rigged poll.
We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion