On 2015-10-14, tom arnall <[email protected]> wrote: > i read the piece on installing without systemd. i get the feeling > that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something? > > who decided that Debian shd be locked to systemd? > > what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the question? > > is it true that Red Hat had a major influence on the Debian decision makers? > > from what i've read so far, systemd is still very much in beta at > best. wd people on this list agree with that?
The subject has already been debated to hell and back on this and other lists. Please, not again. Liam > > > On 10/13/15, Joel Rees <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2015/10/14 13:24 "Ric Moore" <[email protected]>: >>> >>> On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote: >>>> >>>> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but >>>> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement >>>> with Jessie? >>> >>> >>> No. :) Ric >> >> I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but >> >> https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd >> >> Also, this is something I just saw: >> >> http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page >> >> Now, I must say, as near as I can tell, there is no escaping from the >> influence of the cabal at this point, but is that what the OP was asking? >> >> Joel Rees >> >> Computer memory is just fancy paper, >> CPUs just fancy pens. >> All is a stream of text >> flowing from the past into the future. >> > >
