Yaro Kasear wrote: > On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:13:04 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: >> Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > 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. > I guess you mean http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/32759 Didnt enjoy skimming through it much, except maybe this part: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/32874 And indeed, it was just user talk. The only developer who got even remotely interested in participating got flamed. >> > 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. > All these seem like the natural sideffects of Arch's growth along with the (d)evolution (as in degeneration) of Linux. ---- Greg
