On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > 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 > Thanks for the link, I did not want to bring up SELinux yet, because I will not be getting to it for a few months, but this will help a great deal! -Thomas S Hatch
