Re: question about systemd
On Sat 11 Oct 2014 at 13:01:38 -0400, James Ensor wrote:
> 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.
You will notice that not a single person has disputed this. The argument
has instead been shifted to something else. Avoid agreement is the name
of the game.
> 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.
Of course it is, but when there is an agenda......
> 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.
It's only some people. Mind you, they have managed to generate some
1,000 posts in fighting yesterday's battles and ignoring reality.
> 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.
Too practical. :)
Why use something which is available in preference to something which
doesn't exist?
Reply to: