On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Murphy <thegerdur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better? >>> I'm newish to Unix style operating systems >> >> As I said; they are tried-and-true since *decades*, all the problems >> have been ironed out by slow small changes, so if somebody has >> problems they are probably hitting very few people. >> >> Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary >> change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken >> things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as >> well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make >> the big switch (which is clearly not now). > > "Bleeding edge" > > Look it up. So bleeding edge that it doesn't even boot? > Your assumption that the primary purpose of Arch is to be a long-term > stable distro is misguided. Debian is over that way. Its not even like > systemd is some new software that just appeared a month ago... Wrong. I never assumed anything like that. What's the purpose of a distro that doesn't even work? You can try to be on the bleeding edge, and still try to not break things (that's what I have been trying for years with LFS, Fedora, and now Arch Linux). But if the system fails so much that it's basically unusable, I won't try to use it, and I suspect a lot (most) of Arch Linux users won't either. And the fact that some software is old doesn't mean it's stable. To this day I still use Arch Linux without PulseAudio (and I suspect a lot of Arch Linux users do as well). Is your argument that because PulseAudio is old, then I should use it, and I won't have problems? -- Felipe Contreras
