Once upon a time, Always Learning centos@u64.u22.net said:
Is systemd the beneficial, reliable, useful and workable "improved init system" or something with circa 275,000 lines of coding compared to init's circa 10,000 lines ? Things I have learned in programming include modular is better than monolithic, and less code better than M$-style bloatware which systemd appears to be.
You should also have learned in programming the lines of code is a virtually useless measuring stick. OMG, the kernel has over four million lines of code! BREAK IT UP!
There is always a trade-off between modularity and functionality. Sometimes modularity comes with a functionality and/or complexity cost. PID 1 on a Unix-like system really does have special properties, and so some functionality can only be implemented (at least in a practical fashion) in PID 1.
Would you rather a bunch of that "magic" of PID 1 that systemd handles get shoved into the kernel (so that PID 1 isn't so special)?
Just what is Fedora's and Red Hat's Plan B when the revolt against systemd escalates ? Whom is going to apologise for fouling-up Red Hat's EL and our beloved Centos ?
Yawn. I haven't seen that there's a "revolt" except for a vocal minority. Some of the "no change" arguments sound very much similar to the SELinux, xfs/ext4/ext3, Apache 2, gcc/egcs, glibc, ELF, etc. arguments over the years. A vocal group doesn't like change, argues against it, and presents itself as the voice of the silent majority (that somehow keep upgrading to new versions with all the terrible changes).