| 1 |
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:21:05 -0700, walt wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > I don't like systemd, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any |
| 8 |
> explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It was never germane to the conversation. I only mentioned it here to |
| 11 |
make it clear that I am not a systemd or Poettering apologist. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I don't like the idea of such a complex and pervasive init process. Do |
| 14 |
one thing and do it well is the long-standing Unix mantra, and it's been |
| 15 |
long-standing for good reason. This is particularly applicable to the |
| 16 |
most critical process on the system, process 1. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm also uncomfortable with the close ties between systemd and GNOME, not |
| 19 |
that have anything against the GNOME people but init should be |
| 20 |
independently controlled. Red Hat contribute more to the kernel than |
| 21 |
anyone else (12.5% IIRC) but they don't control its development. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have tried systemd on a minimal VM and it did boot very quickly, but |
| 24 |
that's not a real concern for me. The only system I reboot with any |
| 25 |
regularity is my laptop, and that boots equally quickly because it has an |
| 26 |
SSD. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> With belated apologies to my many kind Brit friends from 1974, I ask you |
| 29 |
> to tell us WTF you dislike systemd, and use language that us Yanks can |
| 30 |
> fscking unnerstand, got it, punk? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
OMG IT'S NOT AWESOME! |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
New sig wanted good price paid. |
Archives