| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:38 AM Wols Lists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 09/11/19 19:51, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Only if somebody has created a generator for openrc, which I doubt. |
| 6 |
> > It was obviously a semi-trollish comment. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> Now that's harsh! Although yes I'm sure he was tweaking tails - hence |
| 9 |
> the "tongue in cheek" smiley. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I didn't intend to suggest that I thought it was mean-spirited. Just |
| 12 |
stirring the pot. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Fact is, there are a lot of people out there who hate systemd because |
| 16 |
> it's been successful, and it's been successful because it sticks to the |
| 17 |
> nix philosophy of "do one thing, and do it well". |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Now, THAT is a semi-trollish comment if I ever saw one. :) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That said, you could argue that the individual components of systemd |
| 23 |
do generally do one thing well. I think the criticism is more in the |
| 24 |
packaging, and that the components mostly don't interchange with |
| 25 |
anything non-systemd. Though as we can see from eudev/elogind and so |
| 26 |
on that isn't strictly the case. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I sometimes describe systemd as the anti-busybox. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
But, I don't want to derail the thread entirely... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives