Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems
- From: Chris Bannister <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:54:08 +1300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20121201175408.GF17068@tal>
- In-reply-to: <20121129144041.GA18983@physik.fu-berlin.de>
- References: <50A30C23.firstname.lastname@example.org> <50A52FEF.email@example.com> <20121124155750.GA14735@spruce.wiehl.oeko.net> <20121124161524.GA5448@physik.fu-berlin.de> <20121124170302.GB10163@spruce.wiehl.oeko.net> <20121124173011.GA5909@physik.fu-berlin.de> <50B230CA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20121125150321.GA13477@physik.fu-berlin.de> <20121129142102.GA383@grep.be> <20121129144041.GA18983@physik.fu-berlin.de>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:41PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> the discussion that systemd is a bad design because it uses the same
> configuration file syntax as Windows ini files or XDG .desktop files,
> adding the statement that these are too difficult to parse.
If you are refering to my post:
Please read it again, and read it all the way through.
My post was in response to the statement:
"It is only me who thinks that it is going by Windows steps?"
JFTR, it was your post:
which sparked the discussion regarding the merits of .ini vs .xml.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X