this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1091 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
58603 readers
3818 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Comparing systemd to recall is like comparing apples to gauges of guitar strings.
I was comparing the approach, not the products.
The context matters, doesn't it? Like it or not, systemd is essential for moderns Linux systems by design, it's necessary for them to work. You can't say the same about recall. Comparing the approach without comparing the products is unfair.
And yet moderm linux systems existed prior to systemd, as modern windows exited without recall... Yes i can say the same. You can run linux without systemd (ask Gentoo, Devuan, Slackware and others) and you can run windows without recall. The dependency is forced and artificial.
Not a huge fan but systemd does a lot of stuff necessary to run linux. Of course there's more than one way to skin a cat, but it makes sense to have systemd as a dependency. Recall does exactly zero essential functionality to the OS that would justify making it a dependency to something as important as explorer.exe on Windows.
It's almost as if standardization under Systemd can be beneficial. Still, I'm not a fan of the monolithic approach.