Talk:Systemd

"Opinions" section does not belong

Since when is Wikipedia a sounding board for anyone's arbitrary reception of something? This adds nothing of value to the article. Merely noting that there is some controversy surrounding systemd is completely sufficient - there is no need to highlight any one individual's opinion of why systemd is good *or* bad. And the few opinion pieces this editor has cherrypicked certainly set an unbalanced tone for the article. No, I'm not proposing adding negative reception, I'm proposing that an entire section dedicated to systemd's reception is pointless and inflammatory no matter how you spin it. 98.86.105.195 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I notice that 98.86.105.195 is the same IP from which the edit came (since reverted) which implied that systemd was used in all linux distributions. TTK (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The main article

Isn't systemd a big umbrella project that includes a init system? The Linux Geek (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The init process in the init system is also called "systemd". Guy Harris (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we move the page to "Systemd (Init)" or something similar? The Linux Geek (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it discusses the entire project. Perhaps you meant "why don't we create a "systemd (init)" page for the init daemon, and link to it from the "systemd" page for the project"? Guy Harris (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps I worded that wrong. The Linux Geek (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that systemd as a whole is by now a lot more than "just" an init system. The initialization is one component. Wikipedia should note this down, in particular because other comparisons would be unfair. For example, it is unfair to compare systemd to sysvinit due to the former having a lot more integrated functions than the latter, and also having a larger code base. The current article is fine to discuss systemd, but the wording is not completely correct how it starts, aka "is an init system". Yes, it is an init system but it also is a parallelization system for controlling daemons, cgroups and processes. It even has a fallback shell too. 2A02:8388:1603:CB00:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong citation?

At the beginning of the article there is the sentence The name systemd adheres to the Unix convention of naming daemons by appending the letter. It is followed by a citation, which links to an article which says The developers thought that its name is suitably reminiscent of the French term "système D", an expression that relates to "thinking on your feet" and describes high-speed technical problem-solving abilities such as those displayed by TV action hero MacGyver.. Also I am not sure (but also not wanting to claim otherwise) that daemon is really the right term for an init system, so it's not really adhering to it. But might be wrong there.--Athaba (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"But might be wrong there." Apple seems not to agree with you. Guy Harris (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And I found a citation for "the name ends with "d" because it's a daemon and daemon programs on UN*Xes have names that end with "d"". Guy Harris (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's funny: When that citation was added (2012-05-17, see diff), it was to support the statement "It is also a wordplay on the term System D, which refers to a person's ability to adapt quickly and improvise to solve problems." That sentence was then removed some time later (2012-08-12T21:21:24, see diff), but the reference was kept.—Tea2min (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I put that sentence back - the comment on the edit was "pls provide a reference for the wordplay", but the reference was already there, although you had to know to look for "système D" rather than "system D" to find it. Guy Harris (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Pwnie Awards

Is it worth mentioning this in the article, which was covered in the press at the time it was announced?

Pwnie for Lamest Vendor Response

Awarded to the vendor who mis-handled a security vulnerability most spectacularly.

SystemD bugs 5998, 6225, 6214, 5144, 6237

Credit: Lennart Poettering

Where you are dereferencing null pointers, or writing out of bounds, or not supporting fully qualified domain names, or giving root privileges to any user whose name begins with a number, there's no chance that the CVE number will referenced in either the change log or the commit message. But CVEs aren't really our currency any more, and only the lamest of vendors gets a Pwnie!

90.155.73.34 (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

While I myself happily admit that I am a critique as well, wikipedia has to be as objective as possible and focus on facts. The situation of individual maintainers, and neither lead developers, is not necessarily central to the software at hand. Perhaps it may or may not go towards an article of any particular person on wikipedia, but I do not think that it should be part of the main systemd article. How many issues do you have in total there? 3000? 5000? 10.000? That will also grow as time passes by ... so now, I do not think that one should focus on individual issues or not per se, from the point of view of wikipedia. Wikipedia should be objective in ALL of its main articles - that is one of its main strengths too by the way.

History of the project

It may be better to add a subsection called history of systemd. Right now the article is a tiny bit chaotic and jumps about. I think a history article would be useful - there, one can also link in to other parts that are only marginally related to systemd itself, such as the situation of linux distributions adopting or not adopting systemd. 2A02:8388:1603:CB00:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)