XPost: alt.os.linux.mint, alt.os.linux   
   From: dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org   
      
   On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:35:18 -0400, Mike Easter  wrote:   
      
   > David W. Hodgins wrote:   
   >> It does much   
   >> more than just replace initd, and does so in consistent logical ways.   
   >   
   > What is your 'position' on the arguments completely separate from the   
   > init improvement; that many don't like that systemd likes to take   
   > 'control' of so many non-init responsibilities?   
   >   
   > I guess the systemd idea is that just like init, if systemd can do it   
   > 'better', then that should be just fine.   
   >   
   > However, it does make it progressively more difficult to 'do without'   
   > systemd, since it is SO much more than an init.   
      
   All of the features included in systemd logically belong together. A system   
   level   
   application can not start if the resources it needs are not available. Ensuring   
   all the resources needed are available, and starting them if need be makes   
   sense.   
   Same with mounts, and starting other applications at user login or on demand.   
      
   It's becoming harder not to use systemd because it simplifies things for   
   applications that don't have to duplicate code to make sure things they need   
   are available.   
      
   It's a system resource and application start/stop manager. While it's much more   
   than a boot time daemon starter, everything in it makes sense to integrate into   
   it, in my opinion.   
      
   The biggest problem with the way it was introduced was with the impression   
   given (though never stated that I can remember) that it was only intended as   
   a replacement for initd.   
      
   Regards, Dave Hodgins   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)