Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Wed Oct 22 19:35:51 UTC 2014

> Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what
> distros are popular these days, for server-side operations?  We've
> been running Debian like forever (by way of Solaris and redhat) - but
> this systemd thing is making me rethink things.  Seems like an awful
> lot of folks are now designing for the desktop, and it might be time
> to migrate to a BSD or Solaris derivative.  What are others doing?

to be honest, i like systemd. nobody else has really stepped up to the
bat to fix issues of existing init systems and tying interoperabilty
into a common bus. not everything in systemd is a requirement to run it.
just because a unit is offered for dhcp or ntp, doesn't mean you are
required to use it.

the vast majority of negative tongue wagging regarding systemd is ill
informed. does systemd have growing pains? definitely. are some egos
involved? sure. can systemd be far reaching? yes, is such reach
mandated? no. use the units you want and disregard the rest.

i run Arch Linux in my farms and except for the advanced networking
functions and ease of locally tailoring Gentoo offered, I love Arch more
than any of my .rpm or .deb flavors, *bsd or *nix, and i have used
pretty much all of them. i've run unix like systems since 1988 and cover
the gammut of code writing from bash scripts to kernel modules to apache
and postgres on everything from microcontrollers to mainframes.

before making ill informed rash decisions, study what you're talking
about and then decide whether or not you like and can/can't use said
subject.

-d

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20141022/56e70974/attachment.sig>