Broken by design: systemd
Recently the topic of systemd has come up quite a bit in various communities in which I'm involved, including the musl IRC channel and on the Busybox mailing list.
While the attitude towards systemd in these communities is largely negative, much of what I've seen has been either dismissable by folks in different circles as mere conservatism, or tempered by an idea that despite its flaws, "the design is sound". This latter view comes with the notion that systemd's flaws are fixable without scrapping it or otherwise incurring major costs, and therefore not a major obstacle to adopting systemd.
My view is that this idea is wrong: systemd is broken by design, and despite offering highly enticing improvements over legacy init systems, it also brings major regressions in terms of many of the areas Linux is expected to excel: security, stability, and not having to reboot to upgrade your system.
|
|
Full Story |
This topic does not have any threads posted yet!
You cannot post until you login.