On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:13:04 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > >> Thomas S Hatch wrote: > >> > I am saving the "include SELINUX support in base for a latter date" > >> > > >> > my understanding though is that the stated position of Arch was "no > >> > systemd" > >> > >> s/was/is/g > >> > >> That is also my understanding in regards to selinux. Although i am not > >> familiar with "stated positions" about either. > >> > >> PS. Ntp is fine application that will keep your clock synchronised. > >> It seems to be 5 days off. :) > > > > Yes the systemd topic keeps popping up, right now we don't know > > if certain upstream changes are going to force Arch into using systemd or > > not. > > I dont think such a topic keeps popping up. > In fact I dont remember reading a discussion between Arch developers about > it, ever. > I could probably go on ranting about stuff thats been shoved down users > mouths the last years for months but its futile and a waste of time. > It was a discussion that popped up here, a debate between users who felt replacing sysvinit was completely unneeded to those who seemed to want to use systemd for some useless, unneeded feature maybe less than 1% of Arch users were going to actually use. > > As for adding SELinux support in base but keeping it turned off by > > default, +1 > > Although this isnt a vote, mine was for no selinux at all, so its just 1. > :) Selinux is another unneeded thing, but even worse is that it practically requires a doctorate in computer science to manipulate. Can't deny its security, though. +1 to leaving it out of Arch, not that anyone's asking Arch to.
