Arch Linux Is Switching To Systemd

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Arch Linux Is Switching To Systemd

The Arch Linux developers feel it's time to switch from using SysVInit to systemd...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE2MDE

[energyman]

welcome to poetering-OS. Created because pulseaudio had a problem.

[ShadowBane]

I know some people are going to rage about how terrible systemd is, but it is actually really nice. Arch has been moving towards using a more standard startup sequence for some time, moving stuff out of /etc/rc.conf into the standard configuration files for the backends (the most recent example is networking.)

Systemd works well and is standard. Arch is about using standard configurations. Using Systemd rather than having a boot sequence that is custom for Arch makes sense.

[energyman]

Systemd works well and is standard.

says who?

just because redhat decides to force something down your throat does not make it a 'standard'. SystemV init is a standard. utf-8 is a standard. ISO 2001:2008 is a standard.

Systemd is not.

[Alex Sarmiento]

says who?

just because redhat decides to force something down your throat does not make it a 'standard'. SystemV init is a standard. utf-8 is a standard. ISO 2001:2008 is a standard.

Systemd is not.

It should. Systemd is the best init system for Linux.

[ShadowBane]

says who?

just because redhat decides to force something down your throat does not make it a 'standard'. SystemV init is a standard. utf-8 is a standard. ISO 2001:2008 is a standard.

Systemd is not.

I think you are missing the difference between 'standard' and 'a standard.' You see, in the case of 'standard' it is just the common default option. Systemd is quickly becoming the standard way of booting a linux computer. In the case of 'a standard' it must be recognised by a standards body. Recognising a boot system as a standard would just be silly, it woud serve as a barier to newer and possibly better boot systems and could impair the ability to improve the one that had been enshrined as a standard.


On a side note, what is with all the hate for Pottering? Really, he is a brilliant guy who has contributed a ton to making linux on the desktop usable.

[LightBit]

And I'm switching to Slackware

[Alex Sarmiento]

I think you are missing the difference between 'standard' and 'a standard.' You see, in the case of 'standard' it is just the common default option. Systemd is quickly becoming the standard way of booting a linux computer. In the case of 'a standard' it must be recognised by a standards body. Recognising a boot system as a standard would just be silly, it woud serve as a barier to newer and possibly better boot systems and could impair the ability to improve the one that had been enshrined as a standard.


On a side note, what is with all the hate for Pottering? Really, he is a brilliant guy who has contributed a ton to making linux on the desktop usable.

YES!.

(The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)

Really?

[adler187]

I think you are missing the difference between 'standard' and 'a standard.'

FYI, I think the terms you're looking for are "de facto" and "de jure."

[Nille_kungen]

Systemd is evil.
But i guess it was forced on them to keep things working in the future.