On 4/08/2014 11:35 PM, Raffaele Morelli wrote: > 2014-08-04 15:11 GMT+02:00 Andrew McGlashan > <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au > <mailto:andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>>: > > On 4/08/2014 10:03 PM, Raffaele Morelli wrote: > > I've seen tons of posts sent to this list about systemd... bla bla > > bla... and did not understand what's the matter with it. > > > > I wonder what are you all doing with your init scripts which doesn't > > work with systemd. So what? > > If it isn't broken, why change it? For the sake of ultra fast initial > boot? Again, fix the packages that are broke and don't work without > systemd. > > debian packages are not on-demand services, you should apply to "fix" > whatever packages you are referring to or give up crying to mailing list > feets (still wonder what you "all" are complaining for). My point is that no packages should rely on systemd, to me, that makes no sense. > What you call ultra fast initial boot is being addressed as > "parallelization" (and I guess you've never been stuck on a remote > server because apache ssl is waiting for you at password prompt) In such a case, you start ssh early and apache2 later ... that's all very possible without systemd > "not broken" doesn't mean "good", OSS is not broken but ALSA took place > over it (god bless). True, but why is systemd actually better and why are so many people up in arms about it? Even indicating that they'll choose another distro or worse, leave Linux altogether because of it? Oh and to that other poster.... Linux will always be able to boot faster than Windows, but it depends on many factors. Again, boot time isn't usually an issue until such time as a long running machine has to do an obligatory fsck on the way up with a very large file system. Cheers A.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature