| 1 |
On 18/09/2014 10:07, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:19:21 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> Is systemd starting to encompass too much? I think so, but who cares? |
| 5 |
>>> If we want an init manager that reads systemd-like files but doesn't |
| 6 |
>>> do anything else (hostnamectl, logging, udev, etc.), I guess we'll |
| 7 |
>>> have to make one. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> or trim it back. Conceptually, it shouldn't be too hard to remove those |
| 10 |
>> extra services leaving only an init manager. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Reading posts over the years (I don't use systemd) most of that stuff |
| 13 |
>> can be disabled by config in systemd anyway |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> A lot of it is disabled by default anyway, you have to turn it on if you |
| 16 |
> want to use it. Otherwise it's just there. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That's even better then. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm mildly bemused by these systemd threads - so much emotion. Me, I |
| 24 |
don't have a dog in this fight so I can sit back and look at what's |
| 25 |
going on. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Imagine the ISC-bind lovers going completely apeshit about unbound, |
| 28 |
thinking named is about to go away forever. That's what this looks like. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 35 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives