On 08/10/2014 11:40 PM, sa...@eng.it wrote: > koanhead writes: > > For the record, in case anyone is interested, I'm writing this from a > > Jessie box without systemd... > > > All I did was use aptitude interactively to remove systemd-* and then > > review and adjust the solutions as necessary. Nothing broke or caught fire. > > Did it install automatically something else to manage the boot? >
It did not, because sysvinit was already present. Before I removed all the systemd components I had already taken steps to keep sysvinit as pid1. This installation is 2 years old, and never had systemd managing its boot. If someone intends to go systemd-free on a new jessie install, that person will have to do different things from what I have done. I *think* all that's necessary is to install the sysvinit package, and then remove all the systemd things. I don't know, and given the changing nature of jessie I won't be able to determine any exact sequence of steps until after the freeze. I don't intend to compile any such instructions at any time. It's easy enough to figure out, and anyone who can't manage it ought not use testing. > > I'm not a particular fan nor partisan of systemd. I have used (and > > supported) it in the past on various servers. > > Hmmm. I see systemd more a client-machine-with-frequent-changes tool > rather than a server tool: > > - server should not change this often > - server should not boot this often > > While it is fine to give a good solution to boot time dependencies, > recomputing them at each boot makes sense if you think that the > machine will face changes (network, attached HW) at each boot. Else > you should cache your computation results. > This makes sense to me, but the systems I was supporting were not provisioned by me and so the use of systemd was not my decision. I would not choose it in most cases but am perfectly willing to work with it when it's already there. In my experience systemd provides some advantages, including good troubleshooting tools. > > I think systemd-as-default > > is wrong for Debian if only because it's Linux-only (and therefore not > > Universal) but I do find it good that Debian supports systemd. > > systemd could stop Linux from being a Unix replacement o spur an > innovation in the Unix world that could even lead to something > smarter. I don't know which one will happen. > My crystal ball is also cloudy on this point. I don't know what effect systemd will have on the future of Linux, but I do feel that it's not ideal for the present of Debian. In general I disapprove of adopting defaults which don't work with all kernels on all architectures Debian supports. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lsb7ce$3sc$1...@news.albasani.net
