1 |
On 16/02/2014 17:46, Tanstaafl wrote: |
2 |
> On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> 1. sysvinit (status quo) |
6 |
>> 2. systemd |
7 |
>> 3. upstart |
8 |
>> 4. openrc (experimental) |
9 |
>> 5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux |
10 |
>> 6. multiple |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> It should also be noted that no one in the TC voted OpenRC above |
13 |
>> systemd AND upstart, and that while a couple voted systemd below |
14 |
>> everything else, it can be argued that it was a tactical vote. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> Regards. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> [1]https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/ |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I would really, really, REALLY like to see a thorough, civil debate |
21 |
> involving those far more knowledgeable than I on the pros and cons of |
22 |
> systemd vs OpenRC... |
23 |
> |
24 |
> As it seems to me, the Debian OpenRC page says that the cons are not |
25 |
> nearly as large as the systemd proponents would have us believe. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/openrc |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
I don't know much about systemd, I do know openrc. |
31 |
|
32 |
Thus far, the only real actual benefit I have seen of systemd that is a |
33 |
real issue that really affects me is consolekit. It's not exactly the |
34 |
best piece of software out there, comparable to HAL and how it was |
35 |
replaced by udev. So systemd replaces and fixes consolekit by providing |
36 |
logind. |
37 |
|
38 |
As for all the other supposed benefits of systemd - I don't see them in |
39 |
my world; perhaps they do exist in someone else's worls, I can't really |
40 |
comment on that. But they don't exist in mine and therefore that makes |
41 |
systemd's solutions theoretical for me. |
42 |
|
43 |
Everything I might like in systemd is already implemented in OpenRC so I |
44 |
have no compelling need to switch. Besides, my computers do not break |
45 |
when they boot and shutdown, service management works reliably and well, |
46 |
there are no race conditions on boot that affect me and I still to this |
47 |
day do not understand why I would need cgroups at all. |
48 |
|
49 |
Whatever problems Red Hat are trying to solve in the Red Hat space are |
50 |
problems that do not affect me, so I do not need Red Hat's solution. As |
51 |
for Gnome, I have yet to see a valid reason why Gnome *must* use |
52 |
systemd; that is simply not true at all. |
53 |
|
54 |
Systemd is there, Gnome decided to use it. the Gnome team could just as |
55 |
easily have decided to not use it, or use bits of it, or whatever. Using |
56 |
systemd in Gnome was a choice, not something that had to be done due to |
57 |
a constraint. |
58 |
|
59 |
So overall, systemd might very well solve a particular vertical problem |
60 |
(point to them if it does), but I truly do not see how it can be the |
61 |
OneTrueInitSystem, the One That In The Darkness Binds Us. |
62 |
|
63 |
My 0.02 millicents |
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
Alan McKinnon |
68 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |