Le 01/10/2017 à 21:49, David Wright a écrit : > On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 20:54:50 (+0100), Steffen Dettmer wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: >>>>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible >>>> >>>> you can still use sysvinit as init >> >> I read that trying to use sysvinit causes trouble and several things >> depend on systemd at the moment. > > You can read almost any opinion you like on the web about sysvinit and > systemd. Many of them are wrong. > >>> The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe, > ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ >>> but not simpler. >> >> Simplicity can very roughly approximated by source code size. >> Do you think the systemd implementation of the fsck wrapper >> is simpler that "fsck -A"? > > Not a fair comparison. > > Sysvinit and systemd are just two init systems amongst many, > and they take very different approaches. You can use either > in Debian so please stop complaining. > >> I hope GNU/Linux forks off as soon as systemd integrates an own >> kernel (systemk) and its reimplementation of Wayland (systemx) >> in one binary image blob, which for technical reasons will >> temporarily be called \EFI\BOOT\BOOTx64.EFI, but only until >> UEFI BIOS functionalities are fully integrated. Then you can POST >> and fsck in parallel, write units that depend on POST (so X won't >> start before POST passed! Imagine that!!) to form a clean, simple >> and modern-to-the-max system. >> >> SCNR :-) > > Cheap. People here are trying to help, and you troll. > > Cheers, > David. >
systemd is NOT an init system. It is a global system pretending to replace init, session management,dns, ntp, and more and more other components with incomplete solutions thought only for the laptops of its developers (see the "we won't support hard disks, we all use SDDs").
