Once upon a time, Always Learning <centos at 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). -- Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>