> nobody's enthusiastic
The vast majority of people are fine with it, it's just the loud minority opposes it.
The bulk of linux userbase is systemd only: Centos, Ubuntu, Arch, Opensuse, Fedora. I think these 5 have already 90+% of installations.
The vast majority of people are fine with it, it's just the loud minority opposes it.
The bulk of linux userbase is systemd only: Centos, Ubuntu, Arch, Opensuse, Fedora. I think these 5 have already 90+% of installations.
That does not change your point about systemd adoption. Debian has been in practice systemd only for how many years?
And way more than 10% if we consider that Ubuntu is built on Debian.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg00...
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
support without a compelling reason.
https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=systemd%2C+s...
I'd go further and say you definitely can't rely on popcon, for two main reasons:
1 - Not many sysadmins are happy to install a program that "phones home" at regular intervals about system usage.
2 - Popcon records file access times, so a server that runs for long periods between restarts or reboots shows init files are accessed infrequently. This skews the result towards desktop and laptop installations (which are most likely to use the default init).
Exactly. As confirmed by this vote.
Distros adopted systemd because it solves a huge waste of time that distributors have to deal with: maintaining init scripts. systemd unit files are distro-agnostic and can thus be maintained upstream.
(There's also other useless idiosyncrasies that systemd plowed over, so there's even less work for distributors to do. Or rather, more time to do actually interesting work to differentiate their distribution.)