It seems to me like you're trolling, but I'll assume good faith and reply anyway. On Vi, 18 iul 14, 18:22:49, Steve Litt wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:29:23 +0200 > Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > They should read the mail[1] by one of its maintainers which states > > that it was (and is) _not_ "working just fine", and that a > > replacement has long been overdue. > > I've used Linux every day since March 2001, and I never had a problem > with the way it booted or initialized, other than Grub2. Until this > systemd thing came up, I never heard an *actual Linux user* gripe about > its init, although of course the pro-Microsoft and pro-Apple folks > griped about it all the time. Sorry, but this is not about you. From what I can tell you're not even using applications requiring systemd, so what are you actually complaining about? > Some guy writing an email about all the theoretical flaws in a product > doesn't make the product flawed for the millions who boot their > computers with it everyday, and never give it another thought. The few > who really have a problem with the way Linux inits up could have been > given upstart or systemd or, for that matter, daemontools as an > alternative, without affecting the vast majority who saw absolutely no > problem with the way it had been done. This is not "some guy", but the sysvinit maintainer. And I don't mean just the Debian package. http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/sysvinit > And finally, note that the guy's email doesn't specifically recommend > systemd, and as a matter of fact seems to gravitate toward upstart, > which has a long history of doing the right thing and is known by many. You might have missed the date on his e-mail, but it's 2009-09-05. That's almost 4 years ago and he was talking about replacing sysvinit with upstart in *squeeze*. That's oldstable. Without the squeeze-lts project it would have been out of support by now, i.e. too old even by Debian standards. According to the Wikipedia page systemd was initially released on 2010-03-20, about half a year *later*. Mind also that Canonical shot themselves in the foot with the upstart CLA, which probably prevented a lot of folks (including the future systemd developers) to contribute and improve upstart. Another reason why upstart has always been considered "weird" is its upside down dependency tree, which is considered ilogic by many and leads to many "interesting" problems. For details you should probably read the Technical Committee debate (yes, all of it). > And although his email doesn't talk about user space *applications* > getting entangled the init system, I have a feeling he wasn't > envisioning rank and file applications requiring parts of the init > system. And your point is? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature