Reply to post: Re: However, I don't recall any major agreement that init needed fixing.

You love Systemd – you just don't know it yet, wink Red Hat bods

Stevie

Re: However, I don't recall any major agreement that init needed fixing.

Then why did Red Hat commit their resources, time and effort to developing and releasing systemd into the world at large? Are you telling me they decided to change it up for the sake of it?

Comments in this very thread show that init is not up to the job of firing up computers that *aren't* single-purpose servers. Given the preponderance of counter opinions, I'm not putting a lot of faith in your "didn't need fixing" theory.

I don't disagree with the points you are making at systemd's expense regarding new and exciting bugs, merely saying that if people needed the functionality not easily worked (or possible) with trad system V start-up - and they clearly did - that sitting around waiting for someone else to come up with the goods has resulted in that happening.

And considering that every desktop distro I've looked at now comes with a daily FDA requirement of systemd, it would appear as though those building the distros don't agree with you either.

But that said, I understood that with a little work most distros could be rejiggered to run trad systemv init startup and never deal with systemd. Of course, all those upstream apps that assume you didn't do that may be a head- and heart-ache to maintain.

Swings and roundabouts, but if one seriously expects Linux-based desktops to displace the hated Microsoft Windows, saying that the startup can be got to work with some script changes and a little bit of C code is a non-starter. The alternative works out of the box, y'see.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon