Re: engineering management practices and systemd (Re: Installing an Alternative Init?)
Le 15/11/2014 20:24, Brian a écrit :
> On Sat 15 Nov 2014 at 11:37:14 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>> On Sat 15 Nov 2014 at 13:49:18 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Vi, 14 nov 14, 08:04:00, Marty wrote:
>>>>> By the same token systemd is a major waste with no real gain. It duplicates
>>>>> equivalent modular alternatives, and also requires unnecessary effort to
>>>>> repair damage from excessive coupling.
>>>> I challenge you to come up with a configuration that duplicates
>>>> systemd's features with a combination of other software.
>> That assumes that one needs or wants systemd's features.
> I rather think Andrei might not regard this as answering his challenge.
> (You also didn't say whether the link's picture made you chuckle :) ).
>
>> For some (many?) of us, systemd represents no gain, and significant
>> operational impact (time required to deal with changes).
> Fair enough, but working within the realities of a situation is also
> part of the deal. The deal for Jessie is systemd. This is not on a take
> it or leave basis; quite a lot of work has been put into ensuring the
> alternatives you want are there.
It isq : when you have bugs like
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762623
Once said "oh it works with systemd", then no more activity on the bug,
nothing.
That means that practically, systemd is de facto compulsory. Not the
default, the only way allowed.
So it is take or leave.
Reply to: