Slashdot Mirror
Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'
M-Saunders writes: Systemd is ambitious and controversial, taking over a large part of the GNU/Linux base system. But where did it come from? Even Red Hat wasn't keen on it at the start, but since then it has worked its way into almost every major distro. Linux Voice talks to Lennart Poettering, the lead developer of Systemd, about its origins, its future, its relationship with Upstart, and handling the pressures of online flamewars.
It's a lot better than openrc, which is needlessly slow due to being written in bash and fails at running tasks that don't depend on each other in parallel. I've converted both my desktop and laptop and now more concerned with keeping openrc away from Gentoo.
OpenRC is written in C for the most part. Each init script is shell based though and works fine with pretty much any shell.
You can use bash if you want to, but I prefer to run dash.
As to the parallel start up - well, some users do have an issue depending on what services they have installed and configured.
I personally have no problem with it and use it all the time.
As to the speed? Well, it gets me to the desktop in the same number of seconds as systemd.
Exactly! I have used openRC since it was in beta and it works really really well. Parallel boot works well, the cgroups container stuff works well as well (before some processes were just not being fully killed...)
My system boots equally fast to desktop as with systemd. The major speedup for me was NOTHING todo with openRC or systemd... it was HDD -> SSD (even before sysd ~= openrc).
Only slow thing is dhcpcd but that is more router based then openrc/dhcpcd/sysd.
OpenRC is really really good.
Its one tool, that does many things and does them typically poorly compared to the replacement tools. Systemd does multiple things and does them poorer then what they replaced, therefore it does not do one thing, let alone well. He is trying to redefine systemd away from being the tool and just being a repository, which utterly fails due to some components requiring others in systemd.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Basically, it's not factually incorrect, but very misleading. Sure, they are separate components but they are so tightly coupled you can't really have one without theother so they operate in the same way as a monolithic system despite being split up into multiple components. Facllacy #1 explains it much better than I could here.
Wrong. That base still wouldn't boot my server for me and the systemd people would still be spinning in circles unable to even conceive of a way to fix it. You see, I want the server to boot w/ btrfs in degraded mode should it suffer a drive failure. But systemd won't do it.
I don't know about Suse, byt Red Hat does not. Otherwise they'd have noticed that sysadmins are sticking with RHEL6 to avoid systemd trouble.