-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 11:07:32AM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > Le nonidi 19 germinal, an CCXXV, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > So we always had multi-user: the trend is rather the other way: > > since everyone has his/her own gadget, complex things like desktop > > environments tend to do silly things spoiling the multi-user roots > > of UNIX. > > We agree on that.
Yes, this was more an answer to Richard. > > Note that I'm a decided systemd opponent, and that might shine > > through the above. Feel free to correct any misrepresentation. > > I would not have guessed. But you forgot a very important information: > what are you a PROponent of? A more evolutionary approach. A de-boilerplating of SysV and perhaps an outsourcing of process shepherding to something along the lines of runit. Definitely not a tightly coupled process set hooking into everything from DBus to cgroups. > With the SysV init system, the init program is stupid: it starts the > master script that spawns all the individual init scripts, it reaps its > children dutifully, but it does not keep track of anything beyond a > single 3-bits piece information called "runlevel". [...] All the well-known arguments in favour of systemd. I know them by heart, and this discussion has gone back and forth enough for all of us. You know the counter-arguments as well as I know the pro arguments, so I think it's no use in turning another round. Perhaps we must accept that there are different philosophies here, without hating each other :-) regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAljpRpkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZpaACeNNLuitVVMbhY27fOik+KLBxe 764AnRJUKA+lPUgf/y5ASx6caCyd+3IA =nhSQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
