On 08/14/2012 12:55 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
>> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough
>> for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the
>> 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts
>> on two init systems.
>> Any objections to start the migration process ?
> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't
> order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but
> I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an
> unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is
> systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for
> several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC?
> before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have
> been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should
> revisit them.
I, for one, congratulate Arch developers for this. They don't need to
give reasons. Remember that *Arch is a meritocracy*, not a democracy, if
the developers choose to do this, that is it. Trying to push your ideas
on others while not doing anything at all but giving your opinions is
completely useless for everyone involved, developers and users alike.
Developers have their own ideas that they actually want to implement for
free and share, they don't need your ideas unless they ask for it. *They
didn't ask for it.*
I just hope Arch developers would make this clearer, without fearing
losing users, and these guys, maybe, would stop spamming the mailing
lists with nonsense.