Systemd is bad because it's monolithic!

>systemd is bad because it's monolithic!
>uses the Linux kernel

Attached: 1521653660863.jpg (600x418, 27K)

An OS needs to be monolithic due to performance requirements. A microkernel architecture runs into overhead.
Systemd has no such requirements.

Cope

>systemd is bad because
It has problems shutting down among a myriad of "not-a-bug"s.

Systemd is bad because Poetterang is a spineless cuck who can't own up to his mistakes.

seethe

Monokernelet cope

Systemd is bad because it takes like 2 minutes to shut down.

There are many arguments against systemd, but "scope screen" "muh unix philosophy", "monolithic" is not one of them.

>systemd is bad because it's monolithic!
Never heard this argument. No, Jow Forumsents hate systemd because they're told to.

>systemd bad
>init system good
>fruit company bad
>smelly free software man good
>Black president man bad
>Orange man good

Attached: npc-new-meme-brewing-on-4chan-actual-meme-not-36286148.png (500x677, 69K)

Fuck off newfag

I use the linux kernel, systemd and emacs. Get on my level faggots. RMS doesnt give a shit about the unix principle meme.

Off my board, newfag.

>the Linux kernel
Thank you "the frogposting poster". I thought you meant the laundry detergent, but you did well to avoid confusion.

>Allowing a pajeet tier driver for some chinkshit device to run in ring 0
wew

Still your president.

Attached: maga pepe laughs.jpg (540x700, 60K)

A microkernel has barely any overhead at all, linus is just an idiot.

But it did, once upon a time. You can see the development.
>everything mainstream before 1980: monokernels (VMS, Unix, etc.)
>1980s: extensible monokernels (DOS, Windows, classic Mac OS, etc.)
>1990s: hybrid microkernels (NT, early Mach, etc.)
>2000s: almost-microkernels that make obvious trade-offs for performance (HURD, etc.)
>2010s: microkernels as originally envisaged (L4, some hypervisors, etc.)

seething

It's bad because it's poorly designed. Nobody would complain if it wasn't so obfuscated.