Imho its not necessary for the average user, adding too much complexity.
replyFor example, I tried to config gpsd to use another port, nothing would work; systemd quietly overrides gpsd's configfile and required additional systemd incantations to change what should have been easy. And the man pages are a mess
And journalctl makes me want to pull my hair out; just let me grep a regular file - discovering namespaces is a nightmare
It’s at odds with the philosophy of do one thing and do it well. Its monolithic feature set pushes out smaller contributors and leads to increased reliance on a singular package. This tends to self reinforce. I also use systemd in my current distro so not sure where I stand on this but it’s a fair concern.
replyEverything on modern OSes is at odds with the Unix philosophy ("do one thing well"), including *nix.
replyls has more flags than a Soviet military parade.
Before systemd I had Redhat machines with 3 to 4 years of uptime, and now you need to restart Linux after updates....while Windows people rarely and they laugh at you...
replyIf you use the command line to do the update there is no need to reboot, however, the issues that the offline update is trying to solve still stands.
replySome programs can crash when all their files are suddenly swapped for new ones. I've seen multiple linux systems bork themselves during an update because the update itself caused the desktop session to crash, which caused the update process to be interrupted just as it was modifying some crucial files, thus rendering the system unbootable.
New thing bad
replyIt’s 16 years old and just as old are the criticisms?????
replyIs that a technical argument for the excellence of Windows products? :-))
reply