On Jul 3, 2015 6:10 AM, "LoneVVolf" <lonewolf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Some general comments : > > - Openrc is a replacement for sysv init, not an addition. > OpenRC runs on SysV Init last I checked, as OpenRC is just highly polished initscripts. How is that a replacement instead of an addition? > - openrc has it's own equivalent of .service files, they are simpler then systemd servicefiles. I admit I have not looked at OpenRC service files. But systemd units are barely even 6 lines not counting empty lines. > - my personal opinion about openrc is that it's not mature enough yet for majority of linux users to replace systemd My opinion is because it stoll relies on things Linux desperately needs to be rid of. Systemd has the advantages of both actually ridding us of SysV Init snd ysing vsrious kernel features OpenRC simply can't do to being initscripts. > The majority of Arch users however should be capable enough to use it efficiently. > I have no argumemt here. But I still feel systemd is the better option. > - systemd has many good things, but also many flaws. > OpenRC does too. Not the least of which is that it is not actually an init replacement. Make OpenRC an independent init system then it will be a serious contender. > This blog post gives the best description of systemd flaws i am aware of : > http://judecnelson.blogspot.fi/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fallacies.html I will look this over. But I have already seen a bunch of systemd rants over the years snd they always boil down to the same points: 1. Unix philosophy, as if it was some sort of gospel when even most bona fide Unix systems don't even follow it any more. 2. Feature creep, about the only legitimate gripe I have seen. 3. Blaming the decisions of other projects bad decisionmaking on systemd. GNOME 3 is a classic example. 4. Change Is Bad (tm), usually taking the form of the commentator wanting to cling to initscripts. > > LVV
