2012/8/22 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> no flexibility is lost by moving to systemd, and really, much more >> gained: wider userbase, wider testbase, simple units to write, simple >> units to read, loosely coupled ordering, implicit dependencies, Grand >> Unified logging capabilities, and of course, much better >> speed/reliability/robustness. > > These are all unwarranted assumptions. I would like to see the > evidence for each one of these claims, and if you don't have hard > evidence at best these are *opinions*. I do have contrary evidence for > some of these, but I'm not claiming anything, you are, so you have the > burden of proof. > >> take the (unanimous?) sentiments exhibiting by our developers -- and >> *many* developers elsewhere, in a great variety of capacities/niches >> -- as a sign of the good things to come. i fully expect 99%+ will have >> little trouble adjusting, and 98% will at that time agree it was >> clearly the right choice. > > Maybe, maybe not, but is it the right choice *now*? That's the question. Some upstream package are start to require systemd support. Udev, Polkit is just an example. This is not Arch decision. It is the decision made by upstream. Arch just follow the trend. Add as the poll shows: More Arch users(80%) agree with upstream for this change. There are indeed some corner cases that systemd not support. This is exact the reason Arch should encourage users to try systemd out. If there is indeed problem, they can just remove init= kernel parameter and report it, wait for it been fixed. If this step is not take, most essential package require systemd, Arch users have to switch in short time. There will be little time left to find and fix issue. This situation is the worst and should be avoided. Leon > >> initiatives like this are not removing choice > > Yes they are. I don't want to use systemd, what will be my choice? > > -- > Felipe Contreras
