On 14 August 2012 11:07, Fons Adriaensen <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote: > >> >after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to >> >deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so >> >much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also >> >portable and can be included in upstream packages. >> > >> >This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep >> >seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to >> >systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving >> >plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the >> >event that that ever happened. >> > >> >Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you >> >want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what >> >happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be >> >"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use >> >sysvinit... >> >> I don't think you fully understand the issue. >> >> If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as >> it is now.... >> Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other >> init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the >> system init methods he chooses. If you would want systemd becames >> it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand >> when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only >> one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned. >> >> Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev >> as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init >> system that would use udev. As with Lennart it seems as it's my way >> or the highway...which indeed is the problem. > > I agree. It's not systemd being 'hard' that scares most people > who object to it - that is a misrepresantatio. In fact I'm pretty > sure systemd is easier to use and configure than initscripts. > > BTW has anyone looked at upstart ? The current AUR package is > out of date (and I'm looking at some deadlines so this is not > the time for experiments), but it has excellent documentation > <http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/>, much better than anything > I've seem for systemd so far, and after spending some time > reading the above reference I must say I like it. At least > it doesn't have that ugly and infantile syntax and it looks > like was designed by programmers instead of by a kid. > That is because it was. It was designed and planned before writing, it is backwards compatible, it has very good documentation and unit testing. I approve of upstart as a project even though I do not use it.
