On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:55:44 -0400 John <JohnRChamplin@wowway.com> wrote: > Could someone who has been following the giant fuss on -devel over > init systems explain why there's such a sense of dire urgency? I am sure this is not urgent, Gnome should not be default DE and even they could easily just make two (or more) DE options in installer. XFCE4 is on Wheezy DVD-1. Decisions like changing such an essential part of OS should not be made in rush. With systemd, your system cannot start without DBus to coordinate processes. This makes early system startup to complicated. You cannot start your system w/o DBus installed and working. This can also make problems to small/embedded systems because of increased storage/memory consumption. SysVInit simply works. Symbolic links are a simple and natural way to control system startup. We have update-rc.d. And LSB tags provide protection for order of services. We should just improve our startup scripts, instead of adapting everything to systemd. We would have to learn syntax and way of usage of systemd, and for additional flexibility we would have to use shell scripts anyway. I do not see enough reasons for Gnome to depend on systemd, other than forcing us to switch to systemd for interests of big corporations. -- http://mr.flossdaily.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature