On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> the vast majority of negative tongue wagging regarding systemd is ill >> informed. > > can we skip the ad homina and leave that for the systemd dev fora?
I don't think that it's an ad homina attack, as it's pretty clear that many of the people commenting have not spent a significant time using systemd so many of their comments are based on what they've read on the Internet, not from practical experience with systemd. >> does systemd have growing pains? definitely. are some egos involved? >> sure. can systemd be far reaching? yes, is such reach mandated? >> no. use the units you want and disregard the rest. > > how does this work out in practice? at install, can i choose whether > systemd is used for X as opposed for the separate component? can i > template such choices for cluster deployment with the usual tools? I think that Debian's plan to allow multiple init systems (irregardless of which one is default) is a bad plan. The non-default ones won't get any love - at some point they'll just stop working (or indeed, work at all). Allowing choice of components is a good thing at one level (e.g. sendmail vs. postfix vs. exim). I really don't care (and don't really even remeber) which SMTP server is installed by default on my systems because my configuration management system makes sure that the SMTP server that I prefer is installed and configured the way I want it once the system is up and running. For something like PID 1, each distribution should make a choice and stick with it. I really couldn't care what Debian's init system is, as I don't use Debian (never have, at least not when I have had a choice). If Debian goes through with the switch to systemd, they won't gain me as a user as there are a host of other reasons that I prefer something other than Debian (or Debian-derived) distributions. If a group of people fork Debian because of systemd, more power to them. -- Jeff Ollie