If you want lightness, or need the Linux kernel for something, Alpine Linux is a tiny and solid project.
No systemd to be found (not even an option on BSDs; Alpine Linux is OpenRC).
If you want lightness, or need the Linux kernel for something, Alpine Linux is a tiny and solid project.
No systemd to be found (not even an option on BSDs; Alpine Linux is OpenRC).
Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong.
> ... one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS, often depending on each other.
Systemd is not the OS. Full stop.
Do you mean the project, or the unit system? I'd argue an init system is very much a key part of the operating system, as important as the kernel. You can't really do much without one.
If you mean the project, then you've missed the point.
Certainly seems to want to become it.
> Certainly seems to want to become it.
touché
Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project.
> > Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong.
Note that you originally asserted:
one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS
And I responded with what I feel confident is a statement of fact: Systemd is not the OS.
> Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project.The examples you provide are umbrella projects, no doubt, but none are Operating Systems. Neither is systemd.
While the term "OpenBSD" can be used in the context of a distribution (common), OS (common), and the tools used to initialize same (uncommon), systemd only qualifies for the latter.
Systemd: let's break and change how everything works. You need to relearn everything.
OpenBSD: things work largely the way they've worked for decades. Even as parts of the system are rewritten, the user experience remains very much like it was before, and often the old way of configuring and using things works exactly as before even if the underlying tools have seen a complete rewrite.
> Systemd: let's break and change how everything works. You need to relearn everything.
> OpenBSD: things work largely the way they've worked for decades. Even as parts of the system are rewritten, the user experience remains very much like it was before, and often the old way of configuring and using things works exactly as before even if the underlying tools have seen a complete rewrite.
You're arguing a different point. *BSD's focus on 'experience stability' is completely tangential to the fact that it's a curated series of different utilities, tools and programs designed to work together. Much like systemd.
I tried netbsd a couple times but I’ve never gotten it to compile.