Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

On 02/16/2017 06:06 AM, Philip Hands wrote: > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: > >> --- >> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Philip Hands wrote: >>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: > --- > crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Philip Hands wrote: >> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: >> >>> if systemd is so bloated

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Philip Hands wrote: > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: > >> if systemd is so bloated and all-encompassing that it in effect >> demands *all*

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes: > if systemd is so bloated and all-encompassing that it in effect > demands *all* privileges (it doesn't, but you know what i mean), it > utterly defeats the object of having the security system in the first > place. This appears to be

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:25 PM, zap wrote: > Very insightful, thx. i just... don't explain this stuff very much any more as i expect people to know it. also, i didn't (and still don't) get paid for the expertise i'm aware of, so don't have an established reputation

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

On 02/15/2017 05:12 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:29 PM, John Luke Gibson > wrote: >> I appreciate the explanation. My premise was based on the linux sucks >> video sequel which argued that many people thought systemd was messy >>

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:29 PM, John Luke Gibson wrote: > I appreciate the explanation. My premise was based on the linux sucks > video sequel which argued that many people thought systemd was messy > because it wasn't minimalist enough. > > If the code of the init system

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

Sorry, I just read your reply Mike. I think that answers any curiosity I had. I appreciate it very much. This is makes sense as I imagine it to be part of the problem GNU/Mach is trying to solve (separating components of the system better, and with more micro-managed permissions?). Anyway, above

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

I appreciate the explanation. My premise was based on the linux sucks video sequel which argued that many people thought systemd was messy because it wasn't minimalist enough. If the code of the init system is not getting expanded by interweaving component files, that leaves me curious what it is

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

John Luke Gibson writes: > Perhaps it is the idea that a linux machine should be wholly modular > and attaching a library to a critical component of the system, > shouldn't be a viable strategy for popularizing one's work. > > When a distro is forced to carry a package due

Re: [Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

2017-02-15 7:30 GMT+01:00 John Luke Gibson : > Perhaps it is the idea that a linux machine should be wholly modular > and attaching a library to a critical component of the system, > shouldn't be a viable strategy for popularizing one's work. > True > > When a distro is

[Arm-netbook] A suggestion why Systemd may be bad

Perhaps it is the idea that a linux machine should be wholly modular and attaching a library to a critical component of the system, shouldn't be a viable strategy for popularizing one's work. When a distro is forced to carry a package due to a dependency of a dependency, or any magnitude there