On 17/10/2018 10:11, Anthony K wrote:
It's starting to look as though the BSD camp may embrace systemd sooner rather than later:
https://youtu.be/6AeWu1fZ7bY?t=1537 - I like this bit the most in that video!
But do watch the entire presentation - good stuff.
I've listened to the video and no, it doesn't say any such thing. The video does not say that BSD is going to use systemd.
What the speaker in the video certainly does point out is that service and system management is a good thing overall and that there are better ways of doing this than SysVinit. However, most people have not disputed this.
A lot of people, including very many of those who greatly dislike systemd, accept that SysVinit could and should be replaced or improved upon. It's just that they do not think, for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons, that systemd is the right software to do this. Even on Devuan, for example, many people prefer to use init software other than SysVinit.
The speaker says, amongst others thing, "what I find amusing occasionally is that a lot of people who bitch about systemd, don't bitch about launchd but I find that funny because systemd is launchd in concept" but he should not be surprised. The people who complain about systemd are doing so because (a) launchd is not being forced on them as systemd is in practice (in their view), and/or (b) because they disagree with systemd's specific architectural choices and/or their view of its quality.
I should add that the speaker also massively over-simplifies opposition to systemd on the basis that he incorrectly perceives it to be opposition to change. He seems to ignore the fact that, as above, there are substantive objections to the specific architecture and quality of systemd, not merely objections to change with no deeper reason. He further seems to ignore the fact that many people objecting to systemd would nevertheless favour more modern system/service management.
The speaker goes on to give his reasons as to why bringing service and system management to BSD is a good thing. As I point out above, many people could well agree with this, even many people who dislike the specific implementation of systemd on Linux.
To be clear, objections to systemd on Linux largely seem to me to be about the specific implementation and perceived quality (and, dare I say it, personalities), rather than either fear or change or objection to modern system/service management.
The speaker explicitly points out: "What can we [BSD] get from systemd? I'm not saying that we should adopt it [...] I don't think that trying to directly adopt system is going to work for us". He then goes on to point out why implementing a BSD kernel-based systems/service management component that is inspired by some of systemd's advantages (or, to put it another way, the advantages that any modern system/service management facility could and should offer) would be a good thing. As I say, many people, including many systemd-doubters or haters, would not object to this.
He is not, however, saying that systemd will be used on BSD. He's just saying that the principles of system/service management are good ones and that software other than systemd could implement them. And that's exactly what a lot of systemd's critics say, too.