Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > systemd has nothing to do with "modern" or "better", it's just redhat > controlling the market. More SLOC than the linux kernel but just a hand > full of developers does not sound like a sane plan - well, if your > business model rests on it, it is a sane plan, as a customer I'd run as > fast as I could. No it is not correct and it has been discussed many many times. IF you read the history, you would also understand why the decision to develop systemd was taken. My tests show that it behaves good on buster, so my plan is to use it on the desktop and notebook - for the server it is not relevant. I was also sceptic in the beginning and needed some time to understand the background and also the background of the conflicting opinions. The point is, how I understood it, if you have many subsystems that you want to interact with each other, you need a kind of manager. Obviously the init and xinitd are not meeting expectations. For me it is important to have alternative and debian provides such. No reason to be paranoid about RH. Also I have not seen issues on the RHEL servers, I am working with, that could point to systemd. I think the main problem is the decision taken by the major distros to impose it to the user, without alternative and as usual in too early stage, when the problems were massive. Today - I don't know my impression is neutral to positive. regards --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
