corsicanguppy comments on systemd has been a complete, utter, unmitigated success

No, see the reasoning why distros switched, e.g. Debian or Arch. TL;DR: technical merit, no good alternatives existed at the time, as evidence by how the Arch maintainer paraphrased the average systemd critic:

I think there might be this other project that possibly is doing something similar. I don't really know anything about it, but I'm pretty sure it is better than systemd.

Would the landscape be more diverse if other people would have built someone when Poettering first announced systemd? Probably! Did anyone do it? No! OpenRC wasn't a fully fledged alternative back then, Upstart had fundamental design flaws.

But does anyone regret adopting systemd? Also no! Everybody is happy. It's robust, it works, it makes admin lives easier. Users no longer have to deal with zombies, slow boots, and unnecessary services running.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 1 point 8 months ago

You missed the point: I quoted and linked to contemporary decision making because it illustrates that there's no “strongarming” necessary if something is the only game in town.

Sysvinit was no longer doing the trick, Upstart wasn't architecturally sound, OpenRC wasn't a serious contender at that point either: they could adopt systemd or wait for a few years in case some alternative would come along.

That's why your framing doesn't make sense to me: it implies that there was some sort of choice that Big Init was trying to stack the cards for, but there wasn't at that point.