On 02/10/2016 12:53 PM, Jack L. Frost wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote: >> What does this mean? It means that I prefer a linux distribution that >> supports the newest changes in the linux development. Systemd is one of >> thesee changes. Systemd improves a lot of stuff. There is a reason why all >> other big distribtions are also moving to systemd. It's the future. All the >> shellscript-based init systems are the past. > > As another person on here said, change is not progress. It's new, but it's > debatabe if it's a net positive. > "change is not progress" has no bearing on whether systemd is a net positive or not. The person you responded to explicitly said -- in the very part you quoted, no less! -- "systemd improves a lot of stuff", so clearly they're _not_ relying on the fallacious reasoning of "change = progress"... so why bring it up unless you're just being argumentative for no good reason? >> I really think that Arch Linux shouldn't be a rock in this flow of >> development. We should do it like fedora and support it. We shouldn't help >> to tube-fed all other init systems. >> >> Furthermore there will be (maybe) kdbus in the kernel. Kdbus is at the >> moment still systemd only. I am sure there will come more systemd-specific >> interfaces for the kernel. Kdbus is just one example. > > A detour from the point of this discussion, but I don't think that's a good > thing that the kernel might actually depend on systemd in some ways. Other way around: systemd may at some future point depend on a Linux-only IPC protocol. (One assumes that this would be indirectly via a DBUS-like client library, but whatever...) (Kind of ironic considering your point about ignorance.) > >> 3. The ISO and Arch Linux installation process >> If Arch Linux would support openRC we would have to offer two ISOs. One with >> systemd and one with openRC. > > What? Why? Having a handful of new packages in the repos doesn't mean anything > has to change. If you want to be extra nice about it, then maybe a separate > base group (base-openrc or something), but not a separate iso. > >> Also the way of the installation process would be different. > > Not by much. You're overestimating the whole thing greately. There's a huge difference between "I maintain systemd-free systems for my own use" and "I maintain packages for a very popular distribution". The latter has to work in a huge number of cases you haven't thought of. Anyway, can we please end this thread now? It's not constructive. Regards,
