• badgermurphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Its not, though. The chain of events is well documented, with much of the original correspondence still there to read and evaluate for yourself. Its arguably not a conspiracy, either, since it was perpetrated by a single entity.

    Their motivations for doing it are the subject of a lot of speculation, some of it pretty wild, but the facts that they did do it and how it was done are public record.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      No, see the reasoning why distros switched, e.g. Debian or Arch. TL;DR: technical merit, no good alternatives existed at the time, as evidence by how the Arch maintainer paraphrased the average systemd critic:

      I think there might be this other project that possibly is doing something similar. I don’t really know anything about it, but I’m pretty sure it is better than systemd.

      Would the landscape be more diverse if other people would have built someone when Poettering first announced systemd? Probably! Did anyone do it? No! OpenRC wasn’t a fully fledged alternative back then, Upstart had fundamental design flaws.

      But does anyone regret adopting systemd? Also no! Everybody is happy. It’s robust, it works, it makes admin lives easier. Users no longer have to deal with zombies, slow boots, and unnecessary services running.