←back to thread

167 points sunshine-o | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
travisgriggs ◴[] No.43569845[source]
This actually is kind of cool imo. There are things I like about systemd, and things I don’t. And this seems to fit much more closely around the things liked. Wish I had the time to play more with it on Linux. Would love to see Debian switch to something like this. Always felt like Debian was stuck between “all in” or “go without”. This would have been a nice middle ground choice to have had back in those days.
replies(3): >>43570430 #>>43571106 #>>43572018 #
ape4 ◴[] No.43570430[source]
Yeah, I thought systemd relied very heavily on Linux-native things like cgroups.
replies(3): >>43570843 #>>43572066 #>>43576550 #
sunshine-o ◴[] No.43576550[source]
This is what I was wondering when I searched and found this project: was systemd designed in a way it would inevitably leave behind the BSDs?

Because we always assume the BSDs rejected systemd but it might just be that they were put in a situation where they had no choice.

replies(3): >>43577842 #>>43581583 #>>43597381 #
1. wkat4242 ◴[] No.43597381[source]
I don't think it's so much as rejecting it, it's just not it's even being considered. Because why would it? Something that isn't designed for BSD, that is heavily invested in Linuxisms (not so much cgroups but certainly dbus!). It just never made any sense.