Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

[jlarsen at richweb.com (C. Jon Larsen)]

>> 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.

Perhaps because folks that understand more about security than you (and 
me for sure so I'm not picking on you) think thats a bad idea? If 
something is a bad idea then smart folks dont rush out (generally) to 
build it ... thus the no one stepping up to bat "problem" thats not really 
a problem - its a good thing to not have problems solved improperly.

Perhaps because when you say/hear things like "tying interoperabilty into 
a common bus" you think thats a good idea. Others hear those same words and think:

vendor lock-in
single point of failure
lack of choice

The binary logging thing is a non-starter for a lot of folks. dbus ? On a 
server ? Do we really need that ?

Lets keep servers reliable - less code not more (no bugs in unwritten 
code).

Shouldnt the amount of code running as PID 1 be kept to an absolute 
minimum?

Bad architecture decisions dont suddenly become good ones even if they 
solve other problems along the way or make some things better or faster.