Re: Irony

[saint@eng.it]

koanhead writes:
 > On 08/10/2014 10:30 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
 > 
 > For the record, in case anyone is interested, I'm writing this from a
 > Jessie box without systemd. It's easy to make this happen, and it works
 > just fine as long as you don't use GNOME or MATE, possibly KDE, or those
 > functions of other DEs that require a systemd component.

Fine, that suits perfectly my needing!.

 > All I did was use aptitude interactively to remove systemd-* and then
 > review and adjust the solutions as necessary. Nothing broke or caught fire.

Did it install automatically something else to manage the boot?

 > I'm not a particular fan nor partisan of systemd. I have used (and
 > supported) it in the past on various servers.

Hmmm. I see systemd more a client-machine-with-frequent-changes tool
rather than a server tool:

- server should not change this often
- server should not boot this often

While it  is fine to give  a good solution to  boot time dependencies,
recomputing  them at  each  boot makes  sense if  you  think that  the
machine will face changes (network, attached HW) at each boot. Else
you should cache your computation results.

 > I think systemd-as-default
 > is wrong for Debian if only because it's Linux-only (and therefore not
 > Universal) but I do find it good that Debian supports systemd.

systemd could stop Linux from being a Unix replacement o spur an
innovation in the Unix world that could even lead to something
smarter. I don't know which one will happen.

-- 
 /\           ___                                    Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____               African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico            meaning "I can
\/                 coltivatore diretto di software       not install
     già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...                Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO