2015-07-03 6:45 GMT+02:00 Yaro Kasear <yaro@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > I wouldn't mind some spiritual successor to systemd where its entire > purpose is to be init, without sacrificing some of the more useful/powerful > features like cgroups, concurrency, and the like. Systemd went wrong when > it started going into stuff that init itself really doesn't need to manage > on its own. Well, to be fair, systemd [the process or as a concept] isn't managing it all on its own, there are separate tools for the tasks under the systemd label. The developers saw usefulness in having these tools to keep a better eye on things, and I do think we've gained some benefits over other "pure init"-systems this way. Optimal or not, I don't care. It has at least been a lot easier for me to manage, as a user, compared to parsing tons of different script only to find out what they're trying to do or if any of them even have the same features. That's just my experience after switching to Arch to try systemd when the transition was made. I'm still around because I think the way Arch integrates software feels "cleaner" compared to many other distros. Thank you to all the developers and users who have helped me out directly or indirectly. We don't need to agree on everything before a decision is made. As long as a decision is made in either direction and Arch keeps moving, we could always go somewhere else later if need be.
