On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Rémy Oudompheng > <remyoudompheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras: > >>>>>> 1./ Be a small simple binary > >>>>> > >>>>> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's > >>>>> /sbin/init, but not by much). > >>>> > >>>> But that binary alone is useless, and certainly not *simple*. > >>> > >>> /sbin/init from sysvinit alone is useless. What is your point? > >> > >> The rest are rather simple scripts (in the case of Arch Linux). > >> > >> And you are still ignoring the fact that systemd is anything but > >> *simple*. How convenient to ignore that argument. > > > > Here are my two cents about that: > > * I don't care about having a faster boot if the sequence is incorrect > > or buggy (or, worse, leaves me with an unbootable system) > > * I don't care about having a simpler boot if it doesn't work > > * I don't care about systemd or bash scripts as long as it is > > maintained and bug-fixed. > > Well, systemd is known to cause problems that render the system unbootable: > https://www.google.com/search?q=systemd+unbootable > > -- > Felipe Contreras > Are you serious? This post amounts to flame-bait at best. Almost all of the results from that search are about windows. You can google the same thing with sysvinit or initscripts and get bug reports too, so what is this supposed to prove?
