1 |
> Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things |
2 |
> automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it |
3 |
> tends to be quite human-readable. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> ... why would I want to remove a |
6 |
|
7 |
> stable |
8 |
|
9 |
the biggest complaint about openrc is that its not in stable - go figure. |
10 |
|
11 |
> , efficient, known-good solution |
12 |
> that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy |
13 |
> that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I |
14 |
> just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW |
15 |
> FEATRUES" :) |
16 |
|
17 |
one feature of systemd is, that it has an active upstream. |
18 |
|
19 |
no, i dont think it would be a good idea to switch to systemd, just yet. |
20 |
but like the original baselayout was breaking new ground back when it |
21 |
first was developed, so is systemd. it does things differently and may not |
22 |
have all features yet, but from the outset it appears to be vastly |
23 |
superior to sysv-style inits, upstart and openrc. |
24 |
|
25 |
granted, systemd is currently able to attract enthusiastic supporters. |
26 |
reducing these to mere fanboys, however, is ignoring the technical |
27 |
solution that systemd proposes. yes, openrc works great - and yes, systemd |
28 |
is a better solution when looking at the overall problem. |
29 |
|
30 |
given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no |
31 |
wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-) |
32 |
|
33 |
kind regards |
34 |
Thilo |