On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 C Anthony: In fairness to your rebuttal, you are absolutely correct and moving Arch toward mainstream is probably a good idea. My hesitation is removing choices users are able to make. The choice for simplicity or complexity. As for stagnation, I've fought stagnation in the oil and gas service industry for 30 years and the "we've always done it this way so why change". It's not change that bothers me, it's change for changes sake. I don't consider it change, it's evolution. I surprise most of the younger generation in the area I live in, under 50, because I've been using and repairing computers since 1987, building them since 1993, and online since 1998. I'm also one of the "old timers" who rebels against any system that forces me to do something I don't like or think is necessary. I've never believed that the PTB's are always right, they just happen to be in the drivers seat. As John Cougar Mellencamp once stated " I fought authority and authority won" IMHO opinion the option should remain to keep both solutions and let the user choose which way the wish to use. In all fairness to the developers, I realize that solution entails more work for them and I apologize for making such a request. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
