Re: GNOME 49 and SysV systems (possibly affecting other DEs in the future too)

Am 21.10.25 um 19:16 schrieb Thomas Seeling ([email protected] via
blfs-dev Mailing List):
> Hello,
> 
> I think for educational purposes the LFS book should constrain itself to
> sysV to demonstrate the purpose of an init system in an understandable
> and simple way.
> 
> Since LFS does not *require* systemd it could be moved to BLFS as a
> prerequisite for some DEs.
> 
> In fact this could lead to describe other init systems as alternatives
> as well.
> BLFS has instructions for multiple init systems, so it may also show
> systemd, openrc and whatever else is there, with a migration path from
> the LFS sysV way of doing things.
Interesting idea.  But systemd has already found its way even into the
SysV edition (via Udev).  IIRC the alternative had a reliability-problem.

> 
> Personally I'm very unhappy with systemd, I don't like it at all. I also
> don't like gnome, but not because of systemd :-)
> systemd started as a way to parallelize the startup services as much as
> possible, but it grew into a monster with more than a million lines of
> code.
Hard to regard it as an init-system any more.  For that purpose it's
complete overkill.

> To me it looks like its own ecosystem on top of the Linux kernel, just
I think of it as invasive cancer that is growing into every niche of an
organism.  Hard to fight and get rid of again.  The problem that's being
discussed here is a good example.

> like the saying about Emacs: "nice OS, terrible editor" :-)
That's a good one.  The problem that I have with systemd is not so much
that it's outsized for an init-system or intrusive.  The problem that I
have is that systemd is forcing out all alternatives.  There's no more
"freedom of choice".

Rainer

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page