| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 18/03/12 03:45, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
<snip> |
| 5 |
>> [...] |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> * It tries to unify Linux behaviour among distros (some can argue that |
| 8 |
>> this is a bad thing): Using systemd, the same |
| 9 |
>> configurations/techniques work the same in every distribution. No more |
| 10 |
>> need to learn /etc/conf.d, /etc/sysconfig, /etc/default hacks by |
| 11 |
>> different distros. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Out of the things you listed, this strikes me as the most important. Linux |
| 15 |
> really needs standards. When I install software on Windows, it knows how to |
| 16 |
> add its startup services. On Linux, this is all manual work if your distro |
| 17 |
> isn't supported, especially on Gentoo. If there's no ebuild for it, you |
| 18 |
> spend your whole day trying to make it work. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My day job's on the windows side of things... and as true as it is |
| 23 |
that the application developer knows the approach they're going to use |
| 24 |
today to get their piece of software to start when windows does (as |
| 25 |
often as not, doing so without the knowledge of the user), there's a |
| 26 |
*massive* range of ways to do just that, and they *do* vary as you |
| 27 |
move from one version of windows to the next... and tracking down |
| 28 |
what's actually starting at boot (and why) without tools explicitly |
| 29 |
created to give that information is an incredible amount of work on |
| 30 |
the side of the user and even the usual admin. I'm not sure I'd cite |
| 31 |
that as a positive benefit on the windows side of things... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Poison [BLX] |
| 35 |
Joshua M. Murphy |
Archives