<story><title>Broken by design: systemd</title><url>http://ewontfix.com/14</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>bitwize</author><text>Nice article, but at this point it&amp;#x27;s game, set, match -- systemd has won. The Linux community overwhelmingly supports it, and its advantages clearly outweigh its perceived disadvantages.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;It&amp;#x27;s not Unix&amp;quot; is no longer a valid critique. The old Unix design philosophy is dead. People want systems of components that function as an integrated whole. They do NOT want pieces that are generally unaware of each other (this is touted as the virtue of &amp;quot;loose coupling&amp;quot;).&lt;p&gt;Yes, pid 1 does a lot. That&amp;#x27;s by necessity. It&amp;#x27;s not your grandpap&amp;#x27;s Unix anymore. Do you want to control all the system services, including the &amp;quot;badly behaved&amp;quot; ones? That functionality needs to be in pid 1. Do you want to bring the system up safely and sanely, accounting for things like hotplugged disks in &amp;#x2F;etc&amp;#x2F;fstab? That functionality needs to be in pid 1. Systemd is the correct design for modern Linux. It also brings the advantage of better integration and greater commonality across distros.</text></comment>
<story><title>Broken by design: systemd</title><url>http://ewontfix.com/14</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>oofabz</author><text>&amp;gt; PID 1 brings down the whole system when it crashes. This matters because systemd is complex.&lt;p&gt;The Linux kernel is much more complex and also brings down the whole system when it crashes.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Attack Surface&lt;p&gt;Sysvinit runs shell scripts and has known race conditions. A system like that is not secure by design. It is as secure as it is because exploits were fixed one by one over the years.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Reboot to Upgrade&lt;p&gt;You must also reboot to upgrade sysvinit.</text></comment>