That’s not true at all? I don’t think they use multicall binaries and both systemd-boot and udev (I don’t remember any other util that became part of systemd) are still separate. And every other utility under systemd umbrella is separate as well.
As for philosophy, no unix ever even tried in any way to embody this.
shutdown, reboot, … are symlinks on multiple different systemd repos, I have no reason to believe that is not the systemd standard.
systemd is not moving all it does into a single binary, obviously. Others already mentioned that and a bit further up I mentioned some systemd components that can be isolated too.
GNU posix is one extreme, and busybox the other, and the accusation is that the core of systemd sits too close to busybox, and the other projects might too group together things into fewer binaries that used to be multiple independent commands.
As for the core, I think that constitutes: services, logging (journald), cron+anacron (timers), blocking (systemd-inhibit), and mount.
I am probably missing some there. Timers does not interfere with other cron, but it is there whether you like it or not. Those components also come bundled with otherwise optional linux features like cgroup which do complicate using other posix tools with systemd, as you get unexpected results (like nohup not working).
There is no such philosophy and it was never practiced.
Unix is where the model of linux commands originates, and those commands absolutely embody the unix philosophy.
Systemd is a bit like busybox in that many formerly standalone comands turn into symlinks to systemctl.
Take a look at shutdown for example.
That’s not true at all? I don’t think they use multicall binaries and both systemd-boot and udev (I don’t remember any other util that became part of systemd) are still separate. And every other utility under systemd umbrella is separate as well.
As for philosophy, no unix ever even tried in any way to embody this.
shutdown, reboot, … are symlinks on multiple different systemd repos, I have no reason to believe that is not the systemd standard.
systemd is not moving all it does into a single binary, obviously. Others already mentioned that and a bit further up I mentioned some systemd components that can be isolated too.
GNU posix is one extreme, and busybox the other, and the accusation is that the core of systemd sits too close to busybox, and the other projects might too group together things into fewer binaries that used to be multiple independent commands.
As for the core, I think that constitutes: services, logging (journald), cron+anacron (timers), blocking (systemd-inhibit), and mount.
I am probably missing some there. Timers does not interfere with other cron, but it is there whether you like it or not. Those components also come bundled with otherwise optional linux features like cgroup which do complicate using other posix tools with systemd, as you get unexpected results (like nohup not working).
It’s definitely a thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
I don’t disagree that term itself exists of course. But it was and is bullshit that those philosophers themselves never actually followed.