Hacker News Reader

Comment by mateuszf | Hacker News Reader

Em .. no, thank you. I think that systemd is a good step in the direction of unifying different distributions. Also, many argument presented on that page have been debunked or are actually good things.

View on HN

I think diversity is one of Linux's strengths. And the flexibility is what allows people to experiment and try create new things, wildly different and original things. Things like new init systems, say systemd. I don't mind what init system you use, but it would be nice if one didn't become the dependency that is so hard to replace or work around that no sane person will. That's a way to kill innovation and ensure that big changes only come from the influential elite.

I think that diversity is good in user software. Base system (OS) - kernel + process management should just work good and be portable.

I agree, i find it very hard to believe that so many distos would make the wrong choice here.

It's the best option at the moment arguably not perfect but better then anything else out there.

I wish the owner of that website would would make a better alternative instead of complaining.

I think the concern is that systemd is following a rapid "embrace, extend, extinguish" path, and very quickly will have achieved critical mass and become somewhat unstoppable.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I like Linux, but it's becoming Lennartix and I'm concerned."

They made the only choice. Because various applications are now dependent on systemd APIs in order to function correctly, and those APIs in turn can only be implemented by an init system that is structured the same way as systemd, it's essentially impossible to use anything else. Someone could come up with an alternative to systemd that was superior in every other way and it'd be impossible to move to it. (Hell, it'd have been impossible to move to systemd in the first place if the existing init system was so closely entwined with everything else.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com