On 18/09/2014 10:07, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:19:21 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>> Is systemd starting to encompass too much? I think so, but who cares? >>> If we want an init manager that reads systemd-like files but doesn't >>> do anything else (hostnamectl, logging, udev, etc.), I guess we'll >>> have to make one. >> >> or trim it back. Conceptually, it shouldn't be too hard to remove those >> extra services leaving only an init manager. >> >> Reading posts over the years (I don't use systemd) most of that stuff >> can be disabled by config in systemd anyway > > A lot of it is disabled by default anyway, you have to turn it on if you > want to use it. Otherwise it's just there.
That's even better then. I'm mildly bemused by these systemd threads - so much emotion. Me, I don't have a dog in this fight so I can sit back and look at what's going on. Imagine the ISC-bind lovers going completely apeshit about unbound, thinking named is about to go away forever. That's what this looks like. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
