zlacker

>>cf100c+(OP)
All I want is init scripts and X11, but the horizons are shrinking. I've already compromised with systemd, and I don't like it. I see BSD in my future, or at least a linux distro from the list here https://nosystemd.org/ - probably Gentoo. Nothing to stop me, absolutely nothing at all. I just need a few days free to backup/wipe/reinstall/reconfigure/restore_data and I'll be good. Better make that a few weeks. Maybe on my next machine build. It's not easy, but I build machines for long term use.

As for Linux from Scratch - This is something that's been on my radar, but without the part I'm truly interested in (learning more about SysV) then I'm less inclined to bother. I don't buy the reason of Gnome/KDE - isn't LfS all about the basics of the distro than building a fully fledged system? If it's the foundation for the other courses, but it still feels weak that it's so guided by a future GUI requirement for systemd when it's talking about building web servers and the like in a 500Mb or less as the motivation.

>>antony+Qc
I wonder if the impetus behind the (terrible) monolithic design of systemd was to force standardization across distros. The choice was more political than technical.

If different choices were available for init, DNS resolver, service control manager, volume manager, etc... we would adversely contribute to the schizo distro landscape the people holding the money bags are actively trying to get away from.

With systemd it's an all-or-nothing deal. You get the good with the bad, but all distros shit the bed in the same, deterministic way.

Not even Windows does this. There is no "systemd" equivalent. Yes, Windows ships as a single OS—as do the BSDs—but all the components were developed separately.

If all they wanted was a service control manager, there were many (better) options already in existence they could have used.

>>tokyob+ug
systemd is not a monolith, and distros make different choices on what portions of systemd they which to ship and enable by default.

For example, not all distros ship and use systemd-resolved by default, to choose from your list.

>>bryanl+zl
systemd-boot competes with grub

>>bsimps+Yo
and grub is a rotting pile while systemd-boot is a simple boot entry multiplexer that rides off the kernel's capability of being run as an EFI executable, it just happens to live in systemd's tree. not a good example

>>5G_act+Os
It's a pretty good example of why people think systemd is bloated and does too much. It's a simple boot entry multiplexer. Does it need to live in systemd's tree?

>>fragme+lv
Nobody complains about a very wide variety of only vaguely related utilities being in the Gnu coreutils tree.

>>bryanl+qP
Because they're not all called coreutils. They've got names like sed, awk, and grep, not systemd-named, systemd-analyze, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, systemd-timesyncd. I guess that's a good thing though?