Hacker News Reader

It's a pretty good example of why people think systemd is bloated and does too much. It's a simple boot entry multiplexer. Does it need to live in systemd's tree?

View on HN

Nobody complains about a very wide variety of only vaguely related utilities being in the Gnu coreutils tree.

Nor the 20 or so odd reimplementations of various filesystem drivers and LUKS encryption in the grub2 tree.

But, who is counting?

I'm tired of grub too. That's one of the packages on my shitlist. Currently it is broken on my system, as it has been in the past from time to time. I'm tired of the unreliability and have decided to write my own bootloader instead. It will be simple and bulletproof.

I already laid the basic foundation and have the kernel loading into memory and booting. Next step is to get the memory map and pass that along. It's BIOS only for the moment; EFI support will come later, along with other architectures. (PowerPC is next.)

Because they're not all called coreutils. They've got names like sed, awk, and grep, not systemd-named, systemd-analyze, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, systemd-timesyncd. I guess that's a good thing though?

so its a marketing problem, irregardless of whether it's in systemd's tree because the systemd maintainers want to maintain it in-tree

Reply on news.ycombinator.com