On 08/22/12 at 02:06am, Felipe Contreras wrote: > 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 ...and I think that we've now hit Godwin's Law (Lennart Poettering edition)... Felipe, you lose. Please stop. -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@xxxxxxxxx
