Martin Read wrote:
On 25/10/14 15:31, Peter Nieman wrote:3. There's no alternative to X so far, but there are several alternatives to systemd, and one of them has worked perfectly well for most people until the present day.I would take the "several alternatives" as tending to indicate that perhaps sysvinit + sysvrc does not work "perfectly well", but instead merely BALGE (By And Large Good Enough).
What's wrong with "good enough?"Seriously, nowhere, in all the discussions of systemd, have I seen a significant number of people - other than those directly or indirectly associated with systemd - stand up and say "we really, really, need a new init system," nor have I seen any upstream developers, except those associated with GNOME, making strong statements about how something other than systemd is really necessary for their package. And I specifically haven't heard anything from the important server-side packages (databases, VM environments, mail servers, list managers, and so forth) other than, "oh yeah, I guess we have to write systemd scripts.
Admittedly, my focus is server-side only, and I don't follow every software projects in the world, and I could be wrong. But... has anybody systematically collected input regarding init system requirements and/or systemd vs. sysvinit, from either upstream developers or server sys admins? If so, please point to it. So far, all the push has come from proponents of systemd, and all the substantive discussion has been among the distro/package maintainer community.
Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra