Re: question about systemd
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:38 AM, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 at 07:53 PM, James Ensor wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> James Ensor writes:
>>>
>>>> My impression is that the idea of "systemd's entanglement" has
>>>> been blown way out of proportion.
>>>
>>> The entanglement discussed here earlier had to do with the design
>>> of the Systemd suite, not with dependencies.
>
> (Well, there was some discussion about the dependencies side of thing as
> well, but I think that's more an effect of the design of the systemd
> suite rather than a primary issue of its own.)
>
>> Exactly, and that has been blown way out of proportion. You do not
>> need to have systemd installed or running to have a usable
>> Debian-testing install.
>
> Er... how do these two sentences make sense together?
>
> If I'm reading you correctly, you're claiming that the entanglement
> involved in the design of the systemd suite has been blown way out of
> proportion, and in support of that you're citing the fact that you do
> not need to have systemd installed to have a usable Debian testing system.
>
> But whether or not you have to have systemd installed to have a usable
> Debian testing system is not about the design of the systemd suite; it's
> about dependencies. So your citation seems to have nothing to do with
> the claim at hand.
>
> Is there something I'm missing that makes this make sense?
>
No, I don't think you are missing anything, I just did a really bad
job at translating things from my head to my keyboard, and I confused
two arguments.... Part of that is that I've lost track of who is
saying what.
In my original post, I just pointed out that it's easy to pick an init
system other than systemd by purging it. I was just trying to be
practical.
Subsequent posts seemed to get waaaay off topic, uninformative, and
possibly misleading about how many other things one would lose by
removing systemd. I think someone even stated that, by removing
systemd, a computer would be terrible for daily use. That's just
false.
What I was trying to say here is that people seem to want to debate
the philosophy/quality/whatever about systemd, and have used this to
come to wrong conclusions about the practical aspect of using an
alternate init system.
And, just for the record, I started this exercise just because I was
curious what would happen if I removed systemd. I don't claim to
understand all the complexities of init systems (as you have been able
to tell). Honestly my system seemed to be working just fine with
systemd, and it's working fine without it. I don't really have an
opinion about it. Many of the opinions I have seen expressed in this
thread seem to me to be based not on any facts or knowledge, but more
on prejudice.
Cheers,
James
Reply to: