On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Alexandre Ferrando <alferpal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > And sysvinit didn't have those when it began? Come on. I don't know, I probably wasn't born yet, and probably there weren't even computers before. But supposing there was something before, I'm sure the people that made the transition did it in a responsible manner trying hard not to break anything. That's nothing at all like systemd. Lennart Poettering is known for not caring if his software changes break stuff (there's always somebody else to blame), and I can probably point to dozens of problems that systemd has that initscripts doesn't (today). That's enough reason to hold on the move. Do *you* care at all about breaking the boot process of your users? Some people care to the extreme, like debian, some people doesn't seem to care much, like Fedora (and it shows), and there's all kinds places in the middle of the continuum. But what I find surprising is that I haven't heard any strong advantages that would warrant the potential (already realized) of breaking people's boot process. > Also, nobody is forcing you gun in hand, your life depending on it, to > use systemd. Arch is going to use it by DEFAULT, if you don't like it, > just install another init system and let everyone else do whatever > they feel like doing. But initscripts is going to be eventually unmantained, right? So what choice would I have? Also, nobody is forcing you to move to systemd *now* is there? You could just as easily move one year later, and in fact, it would be easier. -- Felipe Contreras
