e7620

Quote from http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May...:

> > You update systemd but you don't update the kernel? How does that make > > any sense?

> > systemd and kernels are updated in lockstep (Lennart)

And it bears repeating again... systemd is not one single executable or process

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8364318

Also, Vi, Python and Perl aren't "required" for GNU/Linux.

By that definition nothing is ever required. There's the same argument in my comment history, someone said, udev is not required for GNU/Linux. technically, chromium doesn't "require" blink. It's not required, you can use chromium and receive raw html, right? But in that case OSX doesn't "require" Python either, just delete the files, done :)

So again, I'm saying, I want a GNU/Linux system. (Yes, it's not required, I can install MS-DOS, HURD, HP-UX or Android.) That means POSIX, LSB... That's what 99%+ of programs targeting GNU/Linux expect.

systemd is not reliable, unlike eg daemontools, the developers are busy adding new features and don't care at all about old bugs. They say if you're not using one of the latest kernels, tough luck. So you're continuously debugging systemd "modern innovations" instead of focusing on your product.

If you're using Ubuntu, let's hope that by the time it gets adopted, systemd has evolved into a functional, dependable component. I wouldn't bet my product on that, though..

Slackware is an example of this. They removed Gnome almost a decade ago.

Would it really work? I think you'd have to rewrite some parts of the kernel, but I may be wrong now, in the past or the future.

Anyways, we're arguing semantics here, it'd be better for all to separate udev from systemd. It's like Windows installers usually bundling the program with some crap, and I know most people don't appreciate that.

I used systemd last year to see if it was any good, and it's terrible. Specially journald, well it uses a binary format, I see this file, about 250KB, I wanted to decompress it as a text file to use my tools. OK, I had a brand-new very powerful computer. After 1 HOUR, I see a 5GB file, the decompression still running!

Another bug, I needed to power off with (unix sysadmins will laugh at this):

    sync; sync; shutdown -h now

So yes systemd is also technically bad. That's why *BSD, GNU Guix and other alternatives are gaining momentum.

A GNU/Linux system consists of several components. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html shows some examples.

If you remove udev from Linux, I see at least two problems. One of them is technical: programmers expect Linux to have udev, because that's what the Linux authors advertise. The other is legal: Linux is a trademark, and if you replace something and introduce some incompatibility, it's a bad idea to keep calling it Linux.

> But udev isn't in the Linux kernel! How can I remove it from there?!

I think here lies the misunderstanding, udev was previously in the kernel repository, now it isn't. Fair enough. But consider that GNU is also separated in a different repository, but it still comprises the GNU/Linux system as a whole. Imagine we could only download GCC (necessary to compile Linux) as part of Adobe Flash, don't you think I could say the same? That "we can't even build a distro anymore without downloading Adobe Flash"?

GNU/Linux represents choice and freedom. The abundance of distros is proof of that. You can choose your preferred init system, system logger, cron daemon, desktop environment, browser, etc.

Now, systemd is being forcefully pushed to all distros. For instance, by merging udev (a part of the Linux kernel) with systemd. We can't even build a distro anymore without downloading systemd. User choice is under threat.

In this situation, some people align with the forceful approach of systemd. Some prefer to choose what goes into their computers. This is similar to the inclusion of DRM in Firefox, there's no middle ground.

So the debate is really about competitition vs a walled garden provided by systemd.