As a new and inexperienced member of an established community, I try to keep my mouth shut and avoid interfering. Occasionally I feel strongly enough on a subject to speak out and I hope that the below does not upset too many people...
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Frans de Boer <[email protected]> > ... > However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress > ever. While I agree that progress requires change, it does not follow that all change is progress. In assessing systemd I examined the list of reasons given for dissatisfaction with init - and I found that I could not relate to (nor had any memory of experiencing) any of them. Thus, for my personal use-case, systemd is a waste of time attempting to solve problems which do not exist. While systemd does not appear to do any real harm, it abandons decades of established working practice for no perceivable benefit. > ... > I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, > the project should go with the flow. I think that LFS should stick to its core ethos of providing a clear, gentle, beginners' instruction manual on how to compile a working operating system from scratch. Linux, as with much of the FOSS world, provides a great deal of choice. This means that any given task (including system boot) may well have many viable options from which individual implementers can choose. We currently have the situation that init is the default boot option while members of the community offer instructions on how to take the systemd path if desired. I hope that this situation continues indefinitely. I do concede that it would be a valid (though unpleasant) choice to swap roles and have systemd as the default along with instructions on using init as an option. What worries me about that step is the possibility of init disappearing altogether. Regards, R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
