On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:55:33 +0200, "Dr.-Ing. Edgar Alwers" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 18 April 2015 16:24:15 Cifer Lee wrote: > >>> No. systemd is a solution looking for a problem. >>> >>> -- Bruce >> >> Yes, glad to see LFS boycott systemd > > I do not agree at all with "LFS boycotts systemd" !
That's OK, I don't think there is a boycott, that's just something one person said. > I am working with systemd, as I found it in the LFS-book and at that > time nobody could tell me the pros and contras of SysV init vs. systemd. Really "working with"? Do you understand it yet? Are you actually needing to make it do anything that isn't just happening by default? > As a lot of distributors switched to systemd ( Fedora, OpenSUSE, > Arch Linux, Mageia, OpenMandriva, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, CentOS ), > I cannot agree neither with "solution looking for a problem". That is > too easy. The distributors have for sure good arguments for doing that. There are arguments for systemd, but "look how many people are using it" is not one of them. Nor is the fear of being left behind. As far as I can tell systemd started as an overly clever and overly complex attempt to solve the wrong problem, and has consequently become a solution looking for a problem and trying to take over all problems. > There is a very nice blog post "Why systemd ?" which works out the > differences between the systems: > > "http://blog.jorgenschaefer.de/2014/07/why-systemd.html"; I have read it, it does not seem unbiased to me. For instance he refers to the steps needed to create a daemon, linking to a freedesktop.org page which is part of the systemd manual! Also he says that SysV Init is implemented in a "convoluted and baroque way". Just a couple of emotive words to make something sound bad. I don't think they apply, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. There are other examples of bias. From my point of view that post is just one more of the pro-systemd non-arguments that make me annoyed about the whole thing. > I think, SysV init or systemd should remain for the time beeing a personal > decision, and both systems should be supported by LFS, not one boycotted. Of course it should remain, and not just for the time being, but until there is a simple and flexible alternative that allows us to have the system that we want and is not something trying to become a platform in its own right. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
