[CentOS] What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?

Wed Oct 17 16:03:16 UTC 2018
Mark Rousell <mark.rousell at signal100.com>

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

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

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.

Mark Rousell