Which part of the “Linux philosophy” does systemd “violate”.
The scope creep exponentially raises the efforts needed to properly test, troubleshoot, secure, and just generally work with the project code.
I keep seeing these words, “scope creep”, in this thread, and I don’t think most people understand what they mean.
The scope of systemd is an init and service manager, and any basic service required for a minimal, coherent system to work. If you think that it goes too far, then we should be talking about the Linux kernel and all the stuff it has that could run on userland and doesn’t, or coreutils, which essentially is the shell equivalent to systemd without the integration.
Which part of the “Linux philosophy” does systemd “violate”.
I keep seeing these words, “scope creep”, in this thread, and I don’t think most people understand what they mean.
The scope of systemd is an init and service manager, and any basic service required for a minimal, coherent system to work. If you think that it goes too far, then we should be talking about the Linux kernel and all the stuff it has that could run on userland and doesn’t, or coreutils, which essentially is the shell equivalent to systemd without the integration.
Which could apply to GNOME or KDE given they do more than just desktop environments.