On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:02:45AM +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote: > But you linked to the "Appeal to novelty" fallacy, suggesting that other > people argue that systemd is better just because it is new. Fallacies > usually come in pairs, thus my link: changing for change's sake makes no > sense; nor does not changing for tradition's sake. > Okay. Fair enough. > Anyway, the fact that SysV is good enough doesn't mean that it cannot -or > should not- be changed. Whether systemd is the right answer is yet to be > seen, though. If you check the list's history, you'll find that I hate sysv more than systemd. I have been trying to use this opportunity to get people to consider better alternatives. (*cough* http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html *cough*) > The world changes, and the opposite of evolution is stagnation. And I, for > one, moved to Arch to see the change happen! After looking at other distros, reading more of the upstream material, I am convinced that Arch really needs to go with systemd. Not because it is good software but because the other adequate software that this community depends on is going to require it. Arch can't afford to fork all those packages just to have a superior startup system. The value of code correctness is not that high.
