Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
> I just don't understand why you consider uselessd a "trick" that I came
> up with (leaving alone the fact that David brought it up here, and that
> yet another guy started the project).
When I read someone mention uselessd before, I thought it was a
hypothetical fork of systemd which was nearly identical to systemd.
I think uselessd, if it is successful, deals squarely with many of the
actual reasons why people don't like systemd: systemd's tendency to
try to be everything. That is the real coupling threat - not the lack
of ability to continue to use init scripts.
So I think in practice there aren't going to be many packages that
would want to couple specifically to systemd _or_ uselessd, but where
support for other init systems is hard to provide.