| 1 |
On 2014-02-18 1:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask |
| 5 |
>>>> to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate systemd |
| 6 |
>>>> profile for those willing to use it. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd profile, you need to |
| 9 |
>>> use systemd. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Or to create a non-systemd profile :) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That's the best response I've read in, like, many years. That's |
| 14 |
> perfect; I'm 100% behind it. I even volunteer to help (with testing) |
| 15 |
> to anyone going for this. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Canek, |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You've referred many times to other programs that *require* systemd. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm curious as to the extent of these programs, and to what extent they |
| 22 |
*truly* require systemd. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I can't for the life of me think of any reason that server daemons like |
| 25 |
postfix, dovecot, apache, etc would or could ever *require* systemd. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I couldn't care less about gnome (don't use it, never used it, don't |
| 28 |
wanna use it), but what others are there? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Also, for those that do require it, what feature of systemd (that |
| 31 |
doesn't have an alternative available) is it that the program uses? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thx |
Archives