Is it acceptable if I don't think systemd is necessarily bad design...

Oh I love BTFOing antisystemd hippies.

>Gpl licensed, free and open source
>"Just werks"
>Faster boot process
>Eliminates bloat/meme packages

There is NO reason why one should delete systemd from his system. There is nothing systemd can't do what other init systems can.

>Botnet
Source is open, show where

>Not Unix
Neither is linux

>pottering
So what packages did YOU make yesterday?

>he thinks open source means no possibility of backdoors
wew lad

Source is open, show where

Found the schizo

Bash and OpenSSL are open too, dumbass.

Are you implying closed source has no possibility of backdoors, dumbshit? The source being open revealed backdoors and people fixed it.

Fuck off, autistic mouthbreather

Until there's a trusted third party audit on any piece of software verifying it's fully, all software regardless of licence have backdoors by default.

Holy fuck you are one dumb faggot, how old are you? Please tell me you're underage?

Dev incompetency and delusions of grandure
without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd
blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/09/23/end-of-linux/

...

>he's too lazy to read the effing source

>damage control

You can keep saying this, but GNU/Linux basically is Unix. Only a total sperg would be incapable of seeing the humor or lack thereof in Richard Stallman's naming scheme.

>he thinks he has the time to read, examine and prove things about the tens of millions of lines of code running his computer right now
deluded NEET detected

The fact that you seriously think open sauce is some magical security panacea or that software licensing has absolutely anything to do with security audits is enough to tell me you have nothing worth saying.

Go ahead and tell me how open sauce has prevented bash or OpenSSL from being made vulnerable in over 20 years of potential audit?

LMAO buttblasted NEET faggot on damage control

The fact that it was open made it clear that those were fixed when the exploits were invented.

Closed source does not provide any information at all, so there's no audit there.

Why would it be part of a different operating system? What's your rationale? If it's not shit, there's nothing wrong with including it with Linux.

>If it's not shit, there's nothing wrong with including it with Linux.

yes, lets add dependencies for systemd into everything

who cares about unix design principles too

>who cares about unix design principles too
True

UNIX meme is getting too old and annoying

I didn't say it wasn't shit, you fucking illiterate retard, god I wish I was standing behind your oversized chair with a baseball bat to crack over your fat fucking face and spill your brains all over your cheeto-dusted keyboard.

>modular design is a meme
ok kid

It is, no one uses UNIX anymore. It's not practical any longer

>modular design is less practical now even though codebases are so much bigger
ok kid

Exactly

Posted from my non-UNIX system

GNU's Not Unix. However, in the world of Unix (BSD and Solaris) things are going well, and things are just fine.

Actually, going along with the idea that GNU's not Unix, many GNU userland programs use a LISP or MIT way of thinking and way of input, rather than a Bell Labs way of thinking.

systemd is pretty much the next Xorg.

All the more reason to kill it now with extreme prejudice. Xorg is well known as a pile of shit.

Solaris is not long for this world, oracle is neglecting it

Oracle buying Sun was a very bad thing for everyone on this planet. If only Sun and DEC still existed...

And systemd is not a GNU project.

Its way of thinking is not thinking at all

Exactly, the best lower level systems are the ones higher level software doesn't know about.

Xorg suffered this because all the software written that requires it as a dependency gets tied to it. That means when x11 started feature creeping, implementors had to tip toe around not breaking old stuff when adding new stuff. Xorg got so complex that everyone was worried about touching anything because they could break everything.

Creators of Wayland went for a simple protocol for a reason, with the ability for clients to determine what features were available, rewriting a compositor shouldn't break anything that is built for the protocol itself, and implementors can worry about the bells and whistles later.

History doesn't necessarily repeat itself, but it sure is scary when it rymes.

>implementors can worry about the bells and whistles later.

This is a problem X avoided. For example, if you wrote a simple screen recorder or an accessibility tool you knew it was going to work with any other window manager. Now history won't repeat itself and we'll forever be stuck with programs that claim to work on gnome or kde only.

It would be the compositor, or an extension of the compositor that would do screen capture anyways.

Most software will just werk across wayland compositors, but if people are writing clients that directly dependant on a compositor, then you probably wouldn't want to install that piece of software anyways.

Wayland is useless since it has no equivalent of X Athena Widgets, xedit, or xcalc.

Yea got me, it also doesn't have xeyes. I can run that stuff in xwayland, but its not the same

we never needed it in the first place.
bam.