Bruce Dubbs wrote:

<snip - read the thread!>
> I'm interested if you have any personal hands on experience with 
> systemd?  Other than the admittedly different configuration files and 
> learning curve, what's your objection?
> Mine is lack of flexibility as to what runs.  However that's more of a 
> theoretical issue as I've not really had a practical problem that wasn't 
> solved fairly easily with a little research.
>    -- Bruce

My experience with it (Arch) is that it works.  Truely, it just works.  BUT, 
the machines run slower, and the list of running processes is too big to manage 
- but hey, that's the service scheduler's (systemd's) job.

I think it's a pity that the industry is moving to 'Red Hat is always right', 
just as in the 80's we saw 'Microsoft is always right' (Windows for Workgroups 
and even NT, were quite good....).

So my objections are a mix of (1) I'll decide what proportion of my computer 
power is used for what, and (2) we don't need another Microsoft, or Apple (, or 
if you are my age, SCO and IBM).

It needs to be in LFS and BLFS, but then the books also need to support those 
who don't want it, and want a simpler architecture.  If you don't then there is 
a danger of another fork (says he who withdrew his labor 7 years ago....)


Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to