On 08/14/2012 08:45 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Monday 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 Joakim Hernberg wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530
Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we
want to or not
I suspect that this has been the game plan all the
time though. OK, flames away I guess
Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the
people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained,
based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous
that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining
daemons than the solution we currently have.
So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon
control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.
I don't understand your point....
What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?
I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.
So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
tell me I must?
As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?
You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.
Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss
something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking
the enterprise version) days.