> Once again: I'm not sure whether there ever was something like a "Unix" > system. Furthermore I don't get why systemd is not Unix-like.
The Unix philosophy of write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface (Doug McIlroy) > I would > argue that it is a response needed in order to get the maximum out of > our hardware, which differs quite extensively from the one Unix was > originally designed for. > That is exactly what unix was designed for in various flavours but performance and so cpu handling depends on the application. Systemd is larger than init, so for embedded it may well quadruple boot time. > Am 22.07.2012 18:17, schrieb Nicholas MIller: > > I'm also curious how the people who work on initscript believe systemd is > > superior. > > Just take a look at [1]. > A list made to impress. If you actually look at what it means to you, is it so attractive. > Am 22.07.2012 18:22, schrieb Jorge Almeida: > > That's what worries me, that you sincerelly find it superior. I don't doubt > > your good intentions. > > I'm not aware of anyone who has looked into it and doesn't find it > superior. How else would you explain that all the major distributions > are switching over and/or already have? Even before systemd there was > "Upstart", because Canonical "discovered" that the old way of booting is > not up to make most out of today's hardware. Is debian switching if not I believe ubuntu and debian probably make up far more share than perhaps all the others. -- ________________________________________________________ Why not do something good every day and install BOINC. ________________________________________________________
