09-02-2012, 02:51 AM
Thank You. I was wondering why switch from initscripts to systemd if the old method wasn't broken. Your post, seems to indicate the major advantage of switching to systemd is simplification of the boot process. I guess if thats true, then thats as good a reason as any to switch to systemd. I just hope thats the real reason the switch is being made.
Originally Posted by TheCycoONE
09-02-2012, 02:52 AM
In what way is it mandatory?
Originally Posted by Rallos Zek
09-02-2012, 07:23 AM
He's saying that his issues with systemd are purely emotional. That's why there's no technical argument anywhere in that quoted post. This is probably also true for 99 percent of all the other criticism voiced in connection with systemd on websites.
Originally Posted by bwat47
The real arguments are generally brought up on systemd-devel and discussed by people who have some idea what they're talking about. So far, I've never read anything on that list along the lines of systemd being a broken concept. So I'd say there isn't that much to worry about. (The non-portability argument is not even worth discussing, since open code is inherently portable.)
09-02-2012, 08:38 AM
Why wouldn't it be? It also eases up the maintenance of other packages by absolving them from things like ck. Tomegun also brought up some points in the forum, as well as Allan in his "Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?" blog post.
Originally Posted by gururise