I am with you on this one. Unfortunately we can't go back now. On Aug 10, 2014 4:33 PM, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello all, > > I just want to load off my bad mood :) so let me tell you, today i > deinstalled systemd. > > There were several problems, like with shut down, when sound card state > should be saved but created a guru. Sometimes it didn't even boot because > some ACPI thing stuck. Also my reboot / shutdown keys did not work anymore. > I did not have these problems with sysvinit and now they seem to be gone > again. > > The next thing i don't like is the configuration, which is anything but > intuitive. I had a hard time to find out how to fine tune my booting again > (which requires some small custom adaptions), or to just shut up the > massive message blurb that systemd loaded off my terminals, but still have > a human readable logging. > > What pisses me off the most however is that the upgrade did not even ask > me, if i want to switch. > > I read up the architecture description and i'm shocked. The new systemd > swallows a lot of essential subsystems (like udev and acpid) and its hunger > seems still not satisfied. The main developers (which seem to be just 2 > guys, only, which also is quite shocking for me, given the essential > importance and critical freshness of the whole thing!) even state they want > to integrate and streamline as much as possible. > > However, i'm quite sure that the old unix way of 'splitting it up into > small specialized parts' is much more robust. For example, if one component > is not working correctly, it can replaced . With systemd, you don't have > this choice anymore and the whole system will be affected, in worst case, > break down. You'll need to wait until upstream fixes your little thing, and > with such a small developer base, and deep integration, it's highly > questionable if that will be anything like timely, or happen at all. (These > always were particular features of the Microsoft OS which i never was able > to accept.) > > Having a choice also implies more security, because a secured system which > set of active components are rather unknown can't be easily cracked. As a > network admin, i'm totally against the idea of general 'streamlining'. > > Now it seems the developers managed to convince gnome to create a > dependency to systemd. It only means, i will not use gnome anymore. I hope > KDE is not that silly. > > I know this topic does not strictly belong here, well, but let's see if > anyone here likes to argue my ideas. I don't even now to whom to complain, > since i don't want systemd to get better, but rather, a completely > different approach, and first of all with much broader agreement and > support from upstream developers. > But if it boils down to 'do it yourself' which then this is clearly beyond > my scope. I'm on the looser side here. > > (But does anyone know who would be responsible for the switch, in Debian ?) > > Kind regards, > > mi > > > > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [email protected] > Archive: > https://lists.debian.org/[email protected] > >
