On Thu 28 Aug 2014 at 20:37:41 +0200, Erwan David wrote: > Le 28/08/2014 16:10, AW a écrit : > > On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:02:02 +0200 > > Bzzzz <lazyvi...@gmx.com> wrote: > > > > > As all I stand up for is _freedom_ (of any kind) and as what I hate most > > > is fundamentalism (of any kind), this thread is terminated for me. > > > > AKA. I don't want to take the time to either learn systemd or try my hand > > at > > writing excellent sysvinit code... I'd rather just complain instead... > > > > You have freedom to choose, if you want to choose. I'm sure there would be > > takers who would gladly follow, some with cash and code experience. But > > that > > takes a strong leader and not a wishy washy complainer. > > Or systemd is imposed to me iutterly complex and with no real > documentation for migration just a bunch of crossreferencing man pages, > incomplete and without the basic glossary
The technical term for this is "bollocks". The term is used frequently in Barnsley, where they tend to be down-to-earth in init system matters. Nothing is stopping you from writing what you call migration documents. But you would rather join the moaners. > SysVInit was good for me, worked, I did not see ANY argument except > "other do this" (in that case why use linux ? far more people use > windows) or other autority argyuments or mere false facts. Stick with sysvinit then. It isn't hard. The technique is probably in the multi-post thread you started. > I see the OPEN bugs on systemd whose seriousness is kept lower than any > other package (yes the fact that some machine may NOT boot should be > considered utterly grave). > > I see a completely unfinished software, not even beta quality, with > messages saying " in version you must do like this, in version n+1 like > that, but it will change in n+2" > > I sere a system that is unable to properly shutdown a system and > supporters say "it is not important just wait longer, or power off yourself" > > I see long time behaviour being changed and systemd fas saying "it is > just it was bad before". The compatibility is nowhere to be seen > > I see developers refusing that their work is used otherwise than tehy > intend, saying no you mustr also change the logging the system, end soon > the resolver or other *sytem* things. > > I see dependencies to heavy frameworks, which will lead to many small > machines to be unable to still run linux. You see a lot of things. A vivid imagination is a wonderful thing. -- 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/20140828191646.ge4...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
