[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd

[Rémy Oudompheng]

On 2012/8/15 Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
>> > 1./ Be a small simple binary
>>
>> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
>> /sbin/init, but not by much).
>>
>
> Just 26 times as large and who knows how many times more complicated.

systemd has not the same purpose that /sbin/init. You are comparing
completely different things.

>> > 2./ Have no dependencies
>>
>> That is pure BS. If something has no dependencies, it has to do
>> everything in the binary itself. You either end up with no features, or
>> potential for tons of bugs.
>>
>
> No it has the potential and freedom to do anything or nothing without
> the overhead of copying a much larger binary when forking processes or
> imposing any limitations.

Forking processes does not copy binaries.

> Twisting my words yet again like so many other posts which are pro
> systemd. Without a C library which was invented as the heart of UNIX you
> wouldn't have a UNIX-like OS or any general OS including Windows.
>
>
> Here's a list of dependencies for you. There are likely many kernel
> CONFIG options and modules required than the couple listed here and
> likely growing.
>
> cgroups, dbus, ipv6, udev, kmod, pam, libcap

These dependencies just enumerate basic system administration tools in
the form of libraries. A boot procedure relying on shell scripts would
have the same dependencies as commands, that doesn't make any
difference.

I am not pro-systemd at all, I'm even rather for alternatives. Please
don't make the pro-alternative arguments ridiculous.

Rémy.