| 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 |
Archives