Remember this before ranting too much on Lennart. He is not in any position to force any distribution to do anything. Distributions choose to use his software because it actually is better than the stuff that came before it.
Because a lot of software depend on Systemd, and it's quite handy to use the stuff that software depends on when you want to put it in your distribution.
Systemd is not monolithic. It takes a number of components that used to be developed separately and streamlines them under the same roof, making them work better together. It's is not and there has never been the idea that everything under the sun should go into the same binary.
The problem imo is specifically that it's not just an init system. It's morphing into it's own thing that wants to take over all routine system behaviour, and the attitude of the devs is not encouraging (too lazy to find the link, but an oft quoted comment regarding log file corruption illustrates this quite well).
You say that as if it's a bad thing that stuff can be made to work well together if it's developed together.
Linux (at least in my opinion) is all about choice. Don't like the way something works, use something else or write your own. Systemd is becoming a huge chunk that can't easily be swapped out for something else. I'm really against that.
And importance is relative. If you just want a functioning system, I agree that none of this is really that important and I'd probably just use ubuntu or mint or hell just windows or mac. I use gentoo specifically because I like my system "just so". Most people probably fall somewhere in between these points, with some past where they care about systemd and some not. I think this is perfectly healthy. If no one cared about init systems or boot loaders, no one would be developing them!
It's not text editor. Clearly it does not want to be everything. It's an init system, which in a modern system involves parts which used to be developed as separate projects, but since everyone uses them it's better to collect everything under one roof where it's easier to make things work well together.
I felt that early Gnome 3 releases (3.0, 3.2, 3.4) was a bit rough, but starting around 3.6/3.8 things actually started to become really nice. Using Gnome 3.14 right now and all I can say is that if you liked 3.8 from CentOS then you will really like the next release.
Maybe the developers of those "other operating system" should do something about it then. As far as I know some FreeBSD people have a prototype working, not sure how far they have come though.
Just as an outside observer, I think there are two major reasons why Debian likes Gnome so much.
I would say that accessibility is one of the most important reasons from the bits and pieces I've read on the Debian mailing lists that discussed the matter. There's of course many other reasons as well, but that's a big one.
If you have to go though all this mess just to get rid of Systemd then why don't you just move to Systemd? Com on, at the end of the day it's just an init system; it's not like it's the end of the world. It's not really that important, yes really.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember this before ranting too much on Lennart. He is not in any position to force any distribution to do anything. Distributions choose to use his software because it actually is better than the stuff that came before it.
Really? For most users all systemd means is that there are some new commands that you can use if you want. Not a big deal at all.
Because a lot of software depend on Systemd, and it's quite handy to use the stuff that software depends on when you want to put it in your distribution.
This happens every time something happens. Some people always hate everything.
Do they still only rebuild packages once per week? They used to do that when pkgng was new and waiting up to a week for an update was a bit too long.
Yes.
Defragging the hard drive and updating the AV scanner? I thought that wasn't even necessary on Windows anymore.
GnuTLS is just one of the supported TLS toolkits. It uses the Security framework on OS X, and SChannel on Windows.
Is it actually correct or is it "but gcc allows it anyway!"?
Yes.
Just like the Linux kernel being GPLv2 has forced them to reveal anything as it is?
One of the benefits with Systemd is that it adds functionality.
A Gnome 2-inspired look and feel.
A fully functional Systemd has about 69 or so binaries. That's hardly monolithic.
Systemd is not monolithic. It takes a number of components that used to be developed separately and streamlines them under the same roof, making them work better together. It's is not and there has never been the idea that everything under the sun should go into the same binary.
And with any luck, someday you'll have a bootloader and a single binary named linux?
Not likely anytime soon, but I can see some use for that in embedded systems.
The problem imo is specifically that it's not just an init system. It's morphing into it's own thing that wants to take over all routine system behaviour, and the attitude of the devs is not encouraging (too lazy to find the link, but an oft quoted comment regarding log file corruption illustrates this quite well).
You say that as if it's a bad thing that stuff can be made to work well together if it's developed together.
Linux (at least in my opinion) is all about choice. Don't like the way something works, use something else or write your own. Systemd is becoming a huge chunk that can't easily be swapped out for something else. I'm really against that.
I have not tested but it looks like you can swap it out for something else on at least Debian:
https://packages.debian.org/je...
And importance is relative. If you just want a functioning system, I agree that none of this is really that important and I'd probably just use ubuntu or mint or hell just windows or mac. I use gentoo specifically because I like my system "just so". Most people probably fall somewhere in between these points, with some past where they care about systemd and some not. I think this is perfectly healthy. If no one cared about init systems or boot loaders, no one would be developing them!
Indeed.
It's not text editor. Clearly it does not want to be everything. It's an init system, which in a modern system involves parts which used to be developed as separate projects, but since everyone uses them it's better to collect everything under one roof where it's easier to make things work well together.
There has been a lot of work on the Win32 backend over the past year or so. It's much better now.
I felt that early Gnome 3 releases (3.0, 3.2, 3.4) was a bit rough, but starting around 3.6/3.8 things actually started to become really nice. Using Gnome 3.14 right now and all I can say is that if you liked 3.8 from CentOS then you will really like the next release.
Maybe the developers of those "other operating system" should do something about it then. As far as I know some FreeBSD people have a prototype working, not sure how far they have come though.
Just as an outside observer, I think there are two major reasons why Debian likes Gnome so much.
I would say that accessibility is one of the most important reasons from the bits and pieces I've read on the Debian mailing lists that discussed the matter. There's of course many other reasons as well, but that's a big one.
If you have to go though all this mess just to get rid of Systemd then why don't you just move to Systemd? Com on, at the end of the day it's just an init system; it's not like it's the end of the world. It's not really that important, yes really.
But how much of that uptime is reduced, if the monolithic systemd forces a system reboot upon its updates?
I have 31 binaries in /usr/bin that belong to systemd, eight more in /usr/sbin. That's not monolithic.
There are many types of malware.
Good to hear that they apologized.