Martin Read wrote:
On 25/10/14 15:31, Peter Nieman wrote:
3. There's no alternative to X so far, but there are several
alternatives to systemd, and one of them has worked perfectly well for
most people until the present day.
I would take the "several alternatives" as tending to indicate that
perhaps sysvinit + sysvrc does not work "perfectly well", but instead
merely BALGE (By And Large Good Enough).
What's wrong with "good enough?"
Seriously, nowhere, in all the discussions of systemd, have I seen a
significant number of people - other than those directly or indirectly
associated with systemd - stand up and say "we really, really, need a
new init system," nor have I seen any upstream developers, except those
associated with GNOME, making strong statements about how something
other than systemd is really necessary for their package. And I
specifically haven't heard anything from the important server-side
packages (databases, VM environments, mail servers, list managers, and
so forth) other than, "oh yeah, I guess we have to write systemd scripts.
Admittedly, my focus is server-side only, and I don't follow every
software projects in the world, and I could be wrong. But... has
anybody systematically collected input regarding init system
requirements and/or systemd vs. sysvinit, from either upstream
developers or server sys admins? If so, please point to it. So far,
all the push has come from proponents of systemd, and all the
substantive discussion has been among the distro/package maintainer
community.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
--
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/544bcdf2.50...@meetinghouse.net
