On 16/02/2014 17:46, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: >> For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]: >> >> 1. sysvinit (status quo) >> 2. systemd >> 3. upstart >> 4. openrc (experimental) >> 5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux >> 6. multiple >> >> It should also be noted that no one in the TC voted OpenRC above >> systemd AND upstart, and that while a couple voted systemd below >> everything else, it can be argued that it was a tactical vote. >> >> Regards. >> >> [1]https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/ > > I would really, really, REALLY like to see a thorough, civil debate > involving those far more knowledgeable than I on the pros and cons of > systemd vs OpenRC... > > As it seems to me, the Debian OpenRC page says that the cons are not > nearly as large as the systemd proponents would have us believe. > > https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/openrc
I don't know much about systemd, I do know openrc. Thus far, the only real actual benefit I have seen of systemd that is a real issue that really affects me is consolekit. It's not exactly the best piece of software out there, comparable to HAL and how it was replaced by udev. So systemd replaces and fixes consolekit by providing logind. As for all the other supposed benefits of systemd - I don't see them in my world; perhaps they do exist in someone else's worls, I can't really comment on that. But they don't exist in mine and therefore that makes systemd's solutions theoretical for me. Everything I might like in systemd is already implemented in OpenRC so I have no compelling need to switch. Besides, my computers do not break when they boot and shutdown, service management works reliably and well, there are no race conditions on boot that affect me and I still to this day do not understand why I would need cgroups at all. Whatever problems Red Hat are trying to solve in the Red Hat space are problems that do not affect me, so I do not need Red Hat's solution. As for Gnome, I have yet to see a valid reason why Gnome *must* use systemd; that is simply not true at all. Systemd is there, Gnome decided to use it. the Gnome team could just as easily have decided to not use it, or use bits of it, or whatever. Using systemd in Gnome was a choice, not something that had to be done due to a constraint. So overall, systemd might very well solve a particular vertical problem (point to them if it does), but I truly do not see how it can be the OneTrueInitSystem, the One That In The Darkness Binds Us. My 0.02 millicents -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
