FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:39 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Migration to systemd)

Am 14.08.2012 18:19, schrieb Brandon Watkins:
> Systemd isn't going anywhere anytime soon, its going to be adopted by RHEL
> (which means it would also be adopted by RHEL derivatives like CentOS), and
> its being adopted by major distros like fedora, opensuse, mageia etc...

What are those "major distributions"?

1) Debian, Ubuntu, Mint and derivatives
2) Fedora and derivatives
3) openSuSE
4) Arch
5) Mandriva / Mageia
6) Slackware
7) Gentoo

That's about it. As you see, I included Arch up there. As far as I can
see, after Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and openSuSE (in no particular
order), Arch has been number 6 on the list of "major Linux
distributions" (excluding professional stuff like SLES or RHEL) for
several years.

What I am trying to say is: It no longer suffices to say "we follow the
major distributions" when making a decision, as Arch itself is a major
distribution now.

Still, your point stands: Redhat will be funding systemd development for
quite a while.
 
Old 08-14-2012, 11:51 PM
Leon Feng
 
Default Migration to systemd)

2012/8/15 Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
> Am 14.08.2012 18:19, schrieb Brandon Watkins:
>> Systemd isn't going anywhere anytime soon, its going to be adopted by RHEL
>> (which means it would also be adopted by RHEL derivatives like CentOS), and
>> its being adopted by major distros like fedora, opensuse, mageia etc...
>
> What are those "major distributions"?
>
> 1) Debian, Ubuntu, Mint and derivatives
> 2) Fedora and derivatives
> 3) openSuSE
> 4) Arch
> 5) Mandriva / Mageia
> 6) Slackware
> 7) Gentoo
>
> That's about it. As you see, I included Arch up there. As far as I can
> see, after Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and openSuSE (in no particular
> order), Arch has been number 6 on the list of "major Linux
> distributions" (excluding professional stuff like SLES or RHEL) for
> several years.
>
> What I am trying to say is: It no longer suffices to say "we follow the
> major distributions" when making a decision, as Arch itself is a major
> distribution now.
>
> Still, your point stands: Redhat will be funding systemd development for
> quite a while.
>
>

As a rolling release, Arch is usually the leader of adopt new technology.
But now, Arch is falling behind Debian now. So sad.

Chao
 
Old 08-15-2012, 12:08 AM
Nicholas MIller
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On Aug 14, 2012 6:52 PM, "Leon Feng" <rainofchaos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2012/8/15 Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
> > Am 14.08.2012 18:19, schrieb Brandon Watkins:
> >> Systemd isn't going anywhere anytime soon, its going to be adopted by
RHEL
> >> (which means it would also be adopted by RHEL derivatives like
CentOS), and
> >> its being adopted by major distros like fedora, opensuse, mageia etc...
> >
> > What are those "major distributions"?
> >
> > 1) Debian, Ubuntu, Mint and derivatives
> > 2) Fedora and derivatives
> > 3) openSuSE
> > 4) Arch
> > 5) Mandriva / Mageia
> > 6) Slackware
> > 7) Gentoo
> >
> > That's about it. As you see, I included Arch up there. As far as I can
> > see, after Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and openSuSE (in no particular
> > order), Arch has been number 6 on the list of "major Linux
> > distributions" (excluding professional stuff like SLES or RHEL) for
> > several years.
> >
> > What I am trying to say is: It no longer suffices to say "we follow the
> > major distributions" when making a decision, as Arch itself is a major
> > distribution now.
> >
> > Still, your point stands: Redhat will be funding systemd development for
> > quite a while.
> >
> >
>
> As a rolling release, Arch is usually the leader of adopt new technology.
> But now, Arch is falling behind Debian now. So sad.
>
> Chao

I admit I miss some news but last i read debian was NOT moving to systemd
because it only supports Linux...

So how are we falling behind them?
 
Old 08-15-2012, 12:47 AM
Oon-Ee Ng
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> That's about it. As you see, I included Arch up there. As far as I can
> see, after Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and openSuSE (in no particular
> order), Arch has been number 6 on the list of "major Linux
> distributions" (excluding professional stuff like SLES or RHEL) for
> several years.

Reminds me of some of the sports in the Olympics (or even the major
football leagues in Europe). The gap between the top X (in this case,
the threesome of Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora) and the rest is VERY
large. Based on number of users, number of developers, FULL-TIME and
paid developers, and brand recognition.

> What I am trying to say is: It no longer suffices to say "we follow the
> major distributions" when making a decision, as Arch itself is a major
> distribution now.

Depends on your definition of 'major'. As a 'true' community-driven
ie. no consistent funding and volunteer-operated distro Arch will
probably never be in the position to define the terms of conversation.
 
Old 08-15-2012, 01:48 AM
Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 07:51:25AM +0800, Leon Feng wrote:
> As a rolling release, Arch is usually the leader of adopt new technology.
> But now, Arch is falling behind Debian now. So sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
 
Old 08-16-2012, 09:08 AM
Rodrigo Rivas
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia <
archlinux@ishpeck.net> wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
 
Old 08-16-2012, 09:39 AM
Thomas Rand
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On 16 August 2012 11:08, Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia <
> archlinux@ishpeck.net> wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition


please don't continue this OT thread here.
respect Arch ML policies
this is not an arch related general support request
take it to a forum or use the email addresses of those taking part &
make a personal thread.
--
Regards
Thomas Rand
 
Old 08-16-2012, 03:52 PM
Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I do not argue that software is good because it is old. I argue that software which is correct does not need to be changed.
 
Old 08-16-2012, 11:02 PM
Rodrigo Rivas
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia <
archlinux@ishpeck.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
>
> I do not argue that software is good because it is old. I argue that
> software which is correct does not need to be changed.
>

But you linked to the "Appeal to novelty" fallacy, suggesting that other
people argue that systemd is better just because it is new. Fallacies
usually come in pairs, thus my link: changing for change's sake makes no
sense; nor does not changing for tradition's sake.

Anyway, the fact that SysV is good enough doesn't mean that it cannot -or
should not- be changed. Whether systemd is the right answer is yet to be
seen, though.

The world changes, and the opposite of evolution is stagnation. And I, for
one, moved to Arch to see the change happen!

Regards
--
Rodrigo
 
Old 08-17-2012, 12:42 PM
Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia
 
Default Migration to systemd)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:02:45AM +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> But you linked to the "Appeal to novelty" fallacy, suggesting that other
> people argue that systemd is better just because it is new. Fallacies
> usually come in pairs, thus my link: changing for change's sake makes no
> sense; nor does not changing for tradition's sake.
>

Okay. Fair enough.

> Anyway, the fact that SysV is good enough doesn't mean that it cannot -or
> should not- be changed. Whether systemd is the right answer is yet to be
> seen, though.

If you check the list's history, you'll find that I hate sysv more than
systemd. I have been trying to use this opportunity to get people to
consider better alternatives. (*cough* http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html
*cough*)

> The world changes, and the opposite of evolution is stagnation. And I, for
> one, moved to Arch to see the change happen!

After looking at other distros, reading more of the upstream material,
I am convinced that Arch really needs to go with systemd. Not because
it is good software but because the other adequate software that this
community depends on is going to require it.

Arch can't afford to fork all those packages just to have a superior
startup system. The value of code correctness is not that high.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org