On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I just tried systemd. And it just failed. I don't want to know > anything else, and I don't want to find out why. To everyone trying out systemd, please keep in mind that the arch integration has not received a lot of testing yet, so don't expect it to "just work". It does for me (and other people working working on systemd and Arch integration, as far as I know), but I guess there are lots of cases that we have not tried yet. Any detailed descriptions of failures would be highly appreciated. > Just looking at its > underlying framework without having to make it run successfully is > enough to get the point across - it is _not_ KISS. I think this depends on your point of view. For an administrator, user or arch developer, the simplicity should be no less than with initscripts. Depending on what exactly you are doing, I would argue that usually it is much simpler (in the worst case scenario, you can always just use your old arch configuration files and everything will work the same (fingers crossed...)). The complexity only becomes an issue if you want to do systemd development, but I guess that most people will not do that, and requiring all users to understand the internal workings of all the software they use is a bit ambitious (I certainly don't). What should matter is the simplicity of software's external interfaces (like configuration files, behavior, etc). Thanks to everyone who's taking a look at the systemd packages, apologies to anyone whose babies it eats. Tom
