On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On 22.08.2012 02:48, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 22.08.2012 02:10, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> 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). > >>>> > >>> Arch is not sensible in the conservative sense. Being conservative here > >>> means waiting for others to make the software more stable. This is not > >>> really what Arch is about. We regularly move to software that is > >>> just-about-enough stable to be used. As far as I am concerned, systemd > is > >>> at > >>> that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any > >>> problems > >>> at all. > >> > >> So if it works for you, it will surely work for *everybody* else. I > >> have seen this argument so many times that I'm starting to worry about > >> the rationality of Arch Linux users and developers. > > > > I said "As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was > able > > to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all." > > In other words: > > "I was able to convert my laptop to systemd without any problems" > Therefore: "systemd is stable enough to be used" > > > You say I somehow > > said something along the lines of "As far as I am concerned, systemd is > at > > that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any > problems > > at all so it will surely work for *everybody* else." > > You didn't say systemd is at the point where "*I* am able to use it", > you implied that systemd is at the point where it is stable enough to > be used (in general). > > * "systemd is at that point" > * "We regularly move to software that is just-about-enough stable to be > used." > > If this is not what you intended to say, then it seems like a red herring. > > Can we then agree then that you don't *know* if systemd is stable > enough to be used (in general, not only by you)? > > Cheers. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > Umm, the fact thats its been the default init system in several popular distros already? Fedora 15+ , Opensuse 12.1 , Mageia 2, Mandriva 2011... I don't know why you keep hanging onto this idea that systemd is "untested" or "unproven", because it isn't. In fact its already been fairly well tested on arch, plenty of arch users are using it already.
