On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 09:56 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > Sure soon RHEL will switch to systemd with RHEL 7, so the systemd market > share will probably continue to grow. Also SUSE seems to switch to > systemd. With these major distro's taking up systemd, it's almost > impossible that it's not implemented good enough. Hm? Suse was the first distro I used, for good reasons I'm using other distros for serious work today. However, from time to time I install Suse, currently it's the outdated Suse 11.2. For my needs Suse often is much to unstable. I know an important Linux audio coder who is using Linux for serious work. Perhaps he simply has got more knowledge to set up Suse, different hardware and different needs. > p.s. it's a bit lame to just blame Poettering since for everything he > just iirc the maintainer of systemd. Since there are much more people > behind systemd ( Kay sievers, etc. ) But who does aggressive public relations? Nobody, but Poettering. On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 08:15 +0200, Guus Snijders wrote: Op 11 aug. 2012 03:02 schreef "Tom Gundersen" <teg@xxxxxxx> het volgende: > > To be clear: it has always been my plan to make initscripts and > > systemd as close to each other as possible and share as much code as > > possible. I strongly believe this is the right thing to do. If you > > disagree, then I think your time is better spent at coding a > > replacement rather than at whining. > > Just for the record Tom: some of us are very happy with your work on > continuening Initscripts. > It sometimes looks as if 'everyone' feels they must switch to pure systemd, > I for one prefer the predictability of init. I agree that it's a good work, when he tries to give users the choice. I wonder why it's not wanted that people discuss major changes. On another list some people don't want that the default DE for a distro will become another DE. I like the switch to that other DE, but for me there's no need to rant against those who'll keep the DE that was used in the past. However, some people from that list rant against those people, they want them to stop discussing that on this USER LIST. IMO the best place for a discussion is a USER LIST. If there's a result, it can be reported to the relevant people. We often talk about "the most people". Is there anything bad with marginalized groups, people that might not be able to contribute to Linux, but perhaps those contribute to other useful things? I wonder about the definition of the word "community". Seemingly people don't read why people have issues and that people e.g. reported issues, since they always ask to report an issue to another place, to contribute, to pay somebody, not to forget at some point people are just stupid, have to much time etc.. "Community"? Regards, Ralf
