On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Tom: > > The concerns expressed by Evangelos and Tobias were some of the concerns I > had when the push towards systemd started. Systemd is great if you are > managing a large number of computers, but excessive overkill for one or two > desktops with no server. this is accurate/fair -- `systemd` is sort of an umbrella term for many tools at this point -- even udev -- and no one is being forced to use systemd proper. developers are merely leveraging the many small, *independent* tools it provides: # pacman -Qql systemd-tools |grep -E 'systemd[-a-z]+$' ... will show you these tools -- all generic and useful in their own right -- highly relevant to the [near identical] duties tasked to initscripts. [...] > I find Arch much easier to set up and maintain than Fedora, Suse, Debian, > Ubuntu, etc, etc, etc, and I wasn't forced in to their philosophy of > setting up a "CORPORATE", yes I'm screaming, desktop. Currently Arch > provides simple control mechanisms in central locations, and IMHO should > stay that way. i don't think there is an obscene number of files to manage, and, at least IMO, using them simply means ones step closer to upstream. at the end of the day, one must acknowledge that we exist within a greater ecosystem, and resisting one's nature/environment rarely lends greater success. many upstream developers critical to Arch's basic operations are funded by distro's such as those you list ... it's only natural that their ideas and practices become intermixed and applied locally, no matter how much one resists otherwise. everyone is working towards the better, even if they appear -- or even literally *are* -- in conflict with each other or the status quo ... the greatest enemy, however, is that of stagnation, and perpetual "good enough", as that only takes you where you've already been. -- C Anthony
