On 03/27/2013 01:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jake Margason <jmargason758@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I ran away from Arch last year to get away from all this systemd stuff. I
>> hope that you guys will continue to support openrc for as long as possible.
> 
> Don't do top posting, please.
> 
>> One question though. why does everyone seem to be migrating towards systemd?
>> How is it superior? is openrc just a dead project is that why?
> 
> That's three questions ;)
> 
> 1. "why does everyone seem to be migrating towards systemd?"
> 
> Not everyone is migrating towards systemd (yet), but the trend is
> certainly that more and more distros switch to it or at least offer it
> as a first class alternative to whatever other init system they use.
> As for why, I think it's for two reasons: a) it works, b) upstream
> udev merged with systemd, and most distros just follow upstream.
> 
> 2. "How is it superior?"
> 
> Well, that's the pickle. If you are like me, then systemd it's
> superior to OpenRC basically in every single way. If you are one of
> the people that thinks that something called "the UNIX way" actually
> exists, or that "Linux/Gentoo is about choice", or that we should care
> about our *BSD cousins keeping up with us, then systemd is far
> inferior.
> 
> From a technical point of view (the quality of the code and the time
> it takes to fix bugs), I believe everyone (even Lennart's most fervent
> detractors) will agree that systemd is a superb piece of software. The
> problem is the philosophy behind it; if you agree with said
> philosophy, systemd is great. Otherwise, is a new fangled beast which
> goes against everything that UNIX stands for (whatever that means), "a
> solution for a problem no one has", and "fixing something that wasn't
> broken".
> 
> 3. "is openrc just a dead project is that why?"
> 
> Is not dead; it has new releases and stuff. Just not many features are
> implemented to it, and it has some pretty awkward bugs, some of them
> years old, like not being able to start services in parallel.
> 
> It's obviously better that SysV. From my point of view, that's not enough.
> 
> Hope it helps.
> 
> Regards.
> 

A nice, reasonably even-handed writeup. :)