| 1 |
On 2013-08-19 9:36 AM, William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I rather suspect that they are going after the cloud/VM market ... |
| 3 |
> having VM's boot quickly and simply along with no desire/need to fault |
| 4 |
> find and repair ... just rm it and spin up another instance. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Nothing to 'suspect'... they have made it very clear that that is |
| 7 |
precisely where this (systemd) is coming from. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> It makes sense in that market ... what doesn't is pushing it into areas |
| 10 |
> that are not appropriate and people dont want it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Exactly, and exactly. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I still have not seen an adequate explanation as to why systemd isn't a |
| 15 |
> profile as its far more intrusive than a gnome/kde choice and they have |
| 16 |
> profiles. That way some bad choices like polluting systems with systemd |
| 17 |
> files because they are only small and insignificant might be avoided. I |
| 18 |
> have used the mask method but did waste some time on chasing down odd |
| 19 |
> errors due to missing file errors in the logs so I would rather not have |
| 20 |
> them on the system at all. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> So why not a profile so those guys who want to play can get a |
| 23 |
> configuration that better suits them? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I have to say that makes the most sense to me... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Would love to hear *rational* comments from the systemd purveyors as to |
| 28 |
why this shouldn't be done. |
Archives