Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.
>>
>> On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
>>> I wonder... What is a better alternative? And it can't be sysvinit.
>>>
>>> Yes. Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
>>> patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
>>> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception. It's long past
>>> due for a contemporary replacement. Whatever that may be.
>>>
>>> So, what would you all propose? For a server? Or for a user desktop?
>>> Or something that fulfills both scenarios? And why?
>>
>> One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
>> desktop and a server - just degrees.
>>
>
> Um, yes, there is. Typically different hardware (headless for
> starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well
> as different role, and so forth.
>
> Miles
>
With respect, you're just repeating your claim that there is a clear
distinction between server and desktop - not proving it, which doesn't
advance the discussion.
Samba is a server, as is NFS, and apache. If you run them on a desktop
is it still *just* a desktop?
Can you not run a desktop on server hardware?
Can you not run a server on desktop hardware?
I don't "believe" you've thought this through... :)
I'll leave pulseaudio out, just to make things simpler (and acknowledge
that "simple" is a synonym for "dumb").
Kind regards
P.S. I have been told that one major distro does (or is attempting to
do) just that - separate into a 'server' and a 'desktop' distribution.
Reply to: