XPost: alt.os.linux.mint, alt.os.linux   
   From: MikeE@ster.invalid   
      
   David W. Hodgins wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   That was the /purpose/ of its introduction in 2010, a significantly needed   
   purpose.   
      
   wp   
   > They sought to surpass the efficiency of the init daemon in several   
   > ways. They wanted to improve the software framework for expressing   
   > dependencies, to allow more processing to be done concurrently or in   
   >  parallel during system booting, and to reduce the computational   
   > overhead of the shell.   
      
   By 2014, Poeterring saw it/ his idea/ more broadly as:   
   > A system and service manager (manages both the system, by applying   
   > various configurations, and its services)   
      
   > A software platform (serves as a basis for developing other   
   > software)   
      
   > The glue between applications and the kernel (provides various   
   > interfaces that expose functionalities provided by the kernel)   
      
   ... and thus the 'mission creep' that became so upsetting to anti-systemd.   
      
   The anti-/s see it as 'Hitlerian' - going from party intelligence agent to   
   Nazi party orator to leader of the Nazi party to Chancellor of a   
   coalition to dictator and suppression of the other parties. Absolute   
   dictator, and not a benevolent one.   
      
   I would say systemd's success at that is based on what you said;   
      
   DH   
   > While it's much more than a boot time daemon starter, everything in   
   > it makes sense to integrate into it, in my opinion.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Mike Easter   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)