Systemd is soon to be integrated as the default init daemon for Ubuntu, one of the most user-friendly Linux distributions available.
It worries me that Sievers, and the systemd team aren't approaching testing with an almost paranoid attitude. Linux is finally getting a foothold in consumer desktops, it'd be a shame for people to go back to other operating systems purely because "it broke one day, something about systemd".
Yeah I'm considering switching to FreeBSD or even OpenBSD (if it would be possible to play some of my games on it). I don't want to switch really, but if systemd is going to be the default init system from here on and it continues to be plagued by bullshit like this then I don't really want to be bothered by it. (FYI I currently use Arch Linux, one of the early adopters of systemd).
Someone with better freebsd knowledge should chime in, but until then... It is my understanding that the launchd port was one guys google summer project, he worked on it for the summer, put it aside for a couple years and picked it up recently.
They're fucking around well beyond PID 1. Default binary log formats. This odd binary messaging bus with god awful reverse domain names, a shifting binary protocol format that injects itself into the kernels standard text-based messaging formats.
I find the whole dependency system completely bizarre, because to truly implement it, you have to hook into _everything_ and make it part of this odd binary mess they've created above.
I really don't understand the route they are taking, I see the system becoming less capable and more fragile with this type of engineering being encouraged.
> it'd be a shame for people to go back to other operating systems purely because "it broke one day, something about systemd".
FWIW, exactly this happened to me on an upgrade one day on another Linux distribution, after a few other headaches. The switch to systemd broke smbd/nmbd, at the time there were not yet tools for spitting the new binary log format into text, and trying to data mine that logging system to figure out what the hell broke was a real adventure.
I was so skeeved I immediately dumped that and fled to Debian, because it had a reputation for stability.
Imagine how excited I was when Debian voted to adopt systemd.
I, also, have started looking at the BSDs again recently. herbstluftwm looks pretty nifty.
I haven't used linux on a desktop in several years, but my experience was that "it broke many days, something about everything". Why should this one component be held on a pedestal as make-or-break for the whole OS? Is a broken init daemon worse than a broken xorg.conf from a desktop user's perspective?
right up until a ubuntu kernel update breaks the binary gpu driver, and you spend the next two days trying to figure out which binary or open source driver allows you to run everything the way you were at the beginning of the week. Repeat this every 6 months.
Why not give it another try now then? I have used it for years and, unlike windows, I never had to reinstall it just because something broke. And things only broke when I messed around with them, but it was always fixable. If you also use virtual machines or linux containers you will never break anything.
It worries me that Sievers, and the systemd team aren't approaching testing with an almost paranoid attitude. Linux is finally getting a foothold in consumer desktops, it'd be a shame for people to go back to other operating systems purely because "it broke one day, something about systemd".