> 13. Myth: systemd being Linux-only is not nice to the BSDs.
> Completely wrong. The BSD folks are pretty much uninterested in systemd. If systemd was portable, this would change nothing, they still wouldn't adopt it.
> 15. Myth: systemd could be ported to other kernels if its maintainers just wanted to.
> That is simply not true. Porting systemd to other kernel is not feasible. We just use too many Linux-specific interfaces.
So what happens to software written for Linux that can be (and currently is) ported to BSD when it starts to require systemd?
If it starts to rely on systemd, the question you should be asking, is: why does this program want to depend on systemd?
It's to interact with the lower plumbing - ie. set up hostname, locale, timedate, multi-seat etc.
If these interfaces are missing, the software should still work minus a few missing features. Applications could still #ifdef all they want to make things work on BSDs, no change there either.
Honestly, it's about time we standardize and stop wasting time on these low-level things. I'd rather work on software higher up in the stack, than wasting my time working around trivial differences between the Linux distros (bonus points if they get adopted on other the BSDs too). But that's just me.
Comments
> 13. Myth: systemd being Linux-only is not nice to the BSDs.
> Completely wrong. The BSD folks are pretty much uninterested in systemd. If systemd was portable, this would change nothing, they still wouldn't adopt it.
> 15. Myth: systemd could be ported to other kernels if its maintainers just wanted to.
> That is simply not true. Porting systemd to other kernel is not feasible. We just use too many Linux-specific interfaces.
So what happens to software written for Linux that can be (and currently is) ported to BSD when it starts to require systemd?
If it starts to rely on systemd, the question you should be asking, is: why does this program want to depend on systemd?
It's to interact with the lower plumbing - ie. set up hostname, locale, timedate, multi-seat etc.
If these interfaces are missing, the software should still work minus a few missing features. Applications could still #ifdef all they want to make things work on BSDs, no change there either.
Or the BSDs could make their own implementation of the plumbing interfaces. Lennart even provided a handy chart: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePo...
Honestly, it's about time we standardize and stop wasting time on these low-level things. I'd rather work on software higher up in the stack, than wasting my time working around trivial differences between the Linux distros (bonus points if they get adopted on other the BSDs too). But that's just me.