Hacker News Reader

Comment by busterarm | Hacker News Reader

The whole reason Lennart started systemd was because to create a daemon you had to have separate init scripts for every distro (i.e., platform-specific code).

So now not only have we not achieved that goal, but now we've inserted an additional layer of complexity into the mix.

View on HN

Could you please us to this extra complexity you are talking about?

Systemd itself?

It's an entire middleware layer that sits between userland and the kernel that we did not have before.

Er, what does that make init and Upstart?

init systems.

Since you're forcing me to belabor the obvious question just to score some low-effort snark points (thanks!):

The distinction being?

Edit: I'm out of my HN comment quota but kind of glad I am. Because I'm clearly not going to get anything productive from a thread where I wonder aloud why systemd is classified differently and where that distinction lies. When does an init system become middleware "that we didn't have before?" I can think of a few answers but was curious what others think. Fuck me, right?

Instead, ask a question, get snarkily called obtuse and downvoted because we have the misfortune of systemd being the topic of conversation. History shows us you might as well not even participate; if all the people who argued about systemd invested that time into productive activities we'd have warp drive by now. Which would be useful to flee systemd threads.

I swear, systemd is tech's abortion debate.

Stop being obtuse. The GP was saying that systemd has become an entire middleware layer. Instead of addressing that assertion, you were suggesting that upstart and sysvinit are just as much middleware. They're not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com