On 27/07/12 15:45, Stephen E. Baker wrote: > On 27/07/2012 9:29 AM, Mike wrote: >> On 27/07/12 13:57, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: >>> The 27/07/12, Mike wrote: >>> >>>> I'm aware of that, but that doesn't mean one can't fix them. Nobody >>>> said, that the code base of sysvinit shouldn't be modified. >>> It would have been fixed for a long time if it were easy enough. :-) >>> >> Uhm there are init systems available that are baesd on or using sysvinit >> or at least are trying to stay compatible (e.g. upstart), without >> reinventing >> the wheel or declare the unix philosophy obsolote. >> > AFAIK systemd is trying to stay backwards compatible at least in the > sense that upstart is. It can parse old initscripts, and there is > even a target in archlinux that will read your DAEMONS array so you > can pretend you never switched. All this other stuff is just a more > powerful option in systemd that people can move to as they're ready. Not exactly, upstart is an relativly easy to handle sysvinit replacement, systemd is a lot more work. I don't want to pretend anything, systemd doesn't suit my needs, but I have no problems maintaining an init system on my own. I don't care if Arch would declare systemd as default today ;)
