Systemd was initially an attempt to replace the init system on GNU/Linux systems. It quickly turned into a bloated pile of garbage.
It is "THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT A GOOD INIT SHOULD BE."
 Torvalds opinion
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/0896646205 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: udev breakages - was: Re: Need of an ".async_probe()" type of callback at driver's core - Was: Re: [PATCH] [media] drxk: change it to use request_firmware_nowait() Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel, gmane.linux.drivers.video-input-infrastructure Date: 2012-10-03 18:07:10 GMT (1 year, 30 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours and 36 minutes ago) On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Kay Sievers <kay <at> vrfy.org> wrote: > > Nothing really "Next", It's "slow" and it will surely be fixed when > we know what's the right fix, which we haven't sorted out at this > moment. A thirty-second pause at bootup is easily long enough that some people might think the machine is hung. I also call bullshit on your "it will surely be fixed when we know what's the right fix" excuses. The fact is, you've spent the last several months blaming everybody but yourself, and actively told people to stop blaming you: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827538#c12 and have ignored patches that were sent to you: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006357.html despite having clearly seen the patch (you *replied* to it, for chissake, and I even told you in that same thread why that reply was wrong at the time). > I also have no issues at all if the kernel does load the firmware from > the filesystem on its own; it sounds like the simplest and most robust > solution from a general look at the problem. It would also make the > difference between in-kernel firmware and out-of-kernel firmware less > visible, which sounds good. So now, after you've dismissed the patch that did the equivalent fix in udev (Ming Lei's patch basically disabled your idiotic and wrong sequence number test for firmware loading), you say it's ok to bypass udev entirely, because that is "more robust". Kay, you are so full of sh*t that it's not funny. You're refusing to acknowledge your bugs, you refuse to fix them even when a patch is sent to you, and then you make excuses for the fact that we have to work around *your* bugs, and say that we should have done so from the very beginning. Yes, doing it in the kernel is "more robust". But don't play games, and stop the lying. It's more robust because we have maintainers that care, and because we know that regressions are not something we can play fast and loose with. If something breaks, and we don't know what the right fix for that breakage is, we *revert* the thing that broke. So yes, we're clearly better off doing it in the kernel. Not because firmware loading cannot be done in user space. But simply because udev maintenance since Greg gave it up has gone downhill. Linus