Re: Arguments for tech-ctte (Was: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system)

Hi, I really didn't want to write again in this thread (we did write too much already, and the wiki should be the only medium to write about this now...), though I can't just let John Paul Adrian Glaubitz write false statements this way, and the wiki isn't a good medium for debunking things that c

Re: Bug#727708: Arguments for tech-ctte (Was: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system)

This has now been discussed ad nauseam. Can we please stop posting about this on -devel and let the tech-ctte work? Thanks, Paul On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:30 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > On 11/08/2013 02:54 PM, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > > Additional

Re: Arguments for tech-ctte (Was: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system)

On 11/08/2013 02:54 PM, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > Additional arguments in favor of sysvinit: > > * systemd and upstart lead to vendor lock-in; it will be complicated > later to return back or change to third option, as well to change from > first to second option Exactly what vendor would we be

Re: Arguments for tech-ctte (Was: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system)

Additional arguments in favor of sysvinit: * systemd and upstart lead to vendor lock-in; it will be complicated later to return back or change to third option, as well to change from first to second option * I don't have a feeling that configuration can be very simpler than shell scripts; there a