Many people are leaving Linux because of systemd (among other issues); but are choosing FreeBSD because of ZFS, pf, geli, jails, dtrace, bhyve, etc. (I haven't used the latter two myself yet, but the rest are fantastic.)
In the end I've gained more than I lost, it's just that a catalyst was needed to get past the inertia of changing operating systems again.
> Many people are leaving Linux because of systemd
Do you have any number to justify this statement?
I also note that all the tools you mentioned are of interest mostly in a server context (of course if you manage servers you will happily use them on your desktop too).
My guesstimate would be based on the number of posts on the FreeBSD forum(s) and mailing lists I visit where there has been a noticeable increase in the number of questions that mention leaving Linux due to the systemd debacle or wanting something that's not trying to become Windows or a XBox.
That's weird. I haven't kept up with the latest *nix gossip, but isn't the very principle of the system is that it is open and fully configurable/modular/extensible? What does it really matter in the end what system you use if you can make whatever system your own? (serious question)
It matters because if it "invades" your distribution of choice. Imagine you've been useing a distro for years and grown to love it and now systemd is being forced upon you of you make the next major upgrade.
Right now it isn't really that bleak, because some distros still give you a choice, but people are worried that the choice will be sacrificed in favor of easier maintanability in the future.
It matters because if it "invades" your distribution of choice. Imagine you've been useing a distro for years and grown to love it and now systemd is being forced upon you of you make the next major upgrade.
Like ELF, glibc2, egcs, devfs, hotplug (the old script-flavored version), udev, eglibc, etc.
I am mentioning these, because all of them caused a controversy with a vocal minority. It is evolution. None of these are controversial anymore. Some of them were replaced, because they were bad ideas in hindsight (devfs).
By definition any fundamental part of the system (such as init or the C library) that changes is 'forced upon' the user.
Your quotes around 'forced upon' make it seem like it is not really being forced onto users. Gnome users for example are getting shafted now that systemd is a dependency for the gnome DE.
"In layman's terms, the hardware interface is called Linux, while the rest of the part: the shell, core tools, etc are GNU.It's a piece from there, another from somewhere else and merging the whole thing into one collectively known as GNU/Linux. [...] In FreeBSD, the whole thing is a complete unit."
I think the OA will be quite happy with a mature systemd based GNU/Linux OS. Seems to like complete units.
PS: 'Many' is a hard concept when the OS is freely downloadable and not particularly monitored. One hopes the refugees actually make donations/buy DVDs.
no. And I hope not.
I moved to FBSD for positive reeasons: ipfilters and stuff vs packetfilter and ezjails.
It makes you feel linux still cool, but you want that simplicity and power back (jails vs VM).
I must admit shellshock and last security flaws also made me aware of my love for bloatwares. I find it sane to question my former choices.
No. This is _bullshit_, and people should really stop saying this.
A lot of components (OpenSSL? GCC? LLVM?) are in that repository merely for convenience but ARE NOT developed on internally (except for patches to make them work, eventually).
This IS NOT the same of "everything developed internally here, from syslog to dhcpcd" mentality of systemd.
One single repository containing many different components of the OS, which are not designed to be interchangeable. Basically the biggest complaint most systemd critics have ('monolithic!').
Monolithic may have a specific technical meaning in the context of kernels which is not opposed to modularity, but in general the two can be considered opposites. Monolithic is simply "of one piece", while modular means something has separate, changeable pieces. If you disagree it would be more enlightening to tell me your definition instead of a list of exceptions, because right now I don't see why they are.
But they are in the same repo because they are tightly coupled. Some of the code is shared between kernel and userspace for example, and stuff is versioned to match, as the BSDs do not have the strict userspace compatibility guarantees that Linux does, so things do change (though there are compat shims).
On the other hand, with the BSDs, you can swap out nearly any userland component for an alternative and it keeps working. While various things share code, it's very rare that one feature depends on an entirely unrelated feature, which is extremely unlike systemd.
OpenBSD (newbie alert, I'm no expert): when following -stable or -current branch in OpenBSD, the documents advise you to keep the source tree for the kernel, the src and the X system in step with each other and to only take ports or binary packages from the appropriate repository. You are also advised to compile the updated kernel first, reboot into the new kernel and then recompile the src and xenocara(X system) trees. So although the individual programs are all separate, they are intended to work together as a whole with common configuration settings &c and the source is kept in a single cvs tree.
You can't mix and match (say) an Xorg taken from somewhere else and your own special cat program.
My understanding of the systemd project - especially later versions with kdbus in the kernel and udev integrated in along with networking and the console - is that you may need to 'lockstep' your choice of kernel, systemd packages and possibly the DE if using Gnome in order to have a functioning system. I can see advantages in this but it does represent a considerable cultural change in the Linux world which has previously been a little bit like a Lego set.
Which ZFS on Linux is not? I guess it depends on your definition of stable due to the upgrade from libzfs1-2 but the richness of the Debian packaging system is just too good to pass up for me.
Given the licensing issues of combining GPL with CDDL code, ZFS will probably never be included in major distributions (assuming that the license will not change), so they will never have the same amount of integration as e.g. FreeBSD has in the installer.
Have you used other packaging systems? I've always liked ports (or portage in Gentoo) much more than apt. I'd go as far to say, I find apt infuriating compared to those.
