On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15 August 2012 21:31, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I just subscribed to this list, and 80% of the traffic I'm seeing is >> problems with systemd. That should tell you something; systemd has >> problems. > > Felipe, I understand where you're coming from, and I can feel you. > But, the fact remains that your conclusion is merely the result of > these so-called problems with systemd that you yourself haven't > experienced (assumption). I am not a systemd user myself, but I like > what it wants to achieve, and I _will_ make the move sooner or later. Don't use the adjective 'so-called' problems, and I have experienced problems myself: 1) When Fedora switched, my system failed to boot 70% of the time 2) When I tried in Arch Linux it was twice as slow So your sentence would be: "But, the fact remains that your conclusion is merely the result of these problems with systemd". Well yeah! systemd has problems, and that's a problem. > You must also understand that there are bugs at > http://bugs.archlinux.org/ as well, including bugs and feature > requests related to initscripts. Systemd having its own problems - > like all other software - is nothing out of the ordinary. Only when > most of the fundemental issues are attended to can a move be realised. > And that's exactly what we're doing with systemd. Nobody's giving you > a half-assed init. Have you been looking at arch-general? People are experiencing problems where their system doesn't boot. That's a half-assed init. Initially I liked systemd, but that was in theory, in practice it has too many problems, not only the real problems the people experience (not only in Arch Linux but in other distributions as well), but their development practices and philosophies. Sure all software has bugs, but some software has more bugs than others, and the bigger the changes the more possible bugs. And changing from initscripts to systemd is a *HUGE* change. And as any big change, there should be clear good reasons for it, but most importantly; you have to be *careful* while doing this migration. Fedora was careful (more than Arch Linux; by doing it step-by-step), and they still hit a lot of problems. And remember, not being able to boot is not "just another bug"; it's *big*. So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait? What's wrong with waiting another year, and see if you don't see so many problems then? What's the hurry to break people's systems? Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
