> You have the context wrong here. "considering systemd as a default init" > is too vague. Wikipedia says: A default, in computer science, refers to a setting or a value automatically assigned to a software application, computer program or device, outside of user intervention. What's vague about that? > Yes, there is integration work left. But that's really about the > question "is Debian ready to switch all user machines to systemd right > now using the current packages?", and I think nobody would answer "yes" > to that Good so that was exactly my point: let's have this thread when systemd is a production ready alternative. > (before also updating systemd to a much newer upstream version, > etc). They release twice a week or so. That is another sign of a software you shouldn't rely on too much > He was confusing what were likely integration issues with > what would be more fundamental issues with systemd itself (that would > make it less desirable to do the integration work and switch at all), > and I tried to explain the difference. I didn't say it has fundamental architectural flaws that can't be addressed, I said it should be care of the people who want it as default to take care of the flaws and make it a viable alternative before talking about it. Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli http://web.student.chalmers.se/~saltom/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.