Le 08.11.2013 12:12, Marko Randjelovic a écrit :
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:06:25 +0100
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Systemd makes
> system startup more complicated and you need to know not only
shell
> scripts but also systemd syntax.
I'm interested. Do you have a document explaining that you need to
use
shell scripts with systemd? systemd supports shell scripts, but it's
not
because it have to, it is because it's authors wants and easy
integration of existing stuff, AFAIK.
I didn't write it quite well. I meant about non-standard
configuration.
--
http://mr.flossdaily.org
So your argument is that things are more complex when they are not
standard than when they are standard with systemd, while the complexity
is the same ( modulo the script's complexity itself ) with sysvinit?
My opinion on that point is that it's a good thing, because systemd's
standard situations are far simpler to configure than sysvinit, while
the non-standard ones are as complex as the sysvinit's ones (and so as
sysvinit standards ones, too, still modulo the script complexity
itself).
This sounds fair enough for me.
Note that I actually do not intend to use systemd, but it is only
because there are people doing things for me with sysvinit, and that
systemd does too many things according to my tastes (since I want the
lightest system possible, without having to sacrifice any feature. This
works quite well, but could be better if dbus and especially gstreamer
were not required by so many applications, so I won't add a systemd in
it if I can delay... ).
If systemd had not as many features, I would be using it from months.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ebfa806b2b907d990f60c0d0364f5...@neutralite.org
