Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
On 2014-11-16 11:40, Klistvud wrote:
> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
> into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
> the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
> the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
>
> 2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in
> interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them and
> provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs facility provides
> very nice automounting and could be deployed to the majority of desktop
> installs (instead of being just an optional package, as it is now), thus
> making the various automount daemons of the various desktop
> environments/file managers virtually superfluous. As a further example,
> the former udev (prior to being merged into systemd) has already been
> forked and could/will serve us well for years to come. And so on.
+1 for being reasonable and making sense
It's an approach that would keep a lot of people happy and, more
importantly (at least to me), it gives the user choice instead of taking
it away. At least this way each user could choose the loosely-coupled
components s/he wanted.
Reply to: