On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Denis Heidtmann <denis.heidtm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me, an uninformed and basically ignorant Linux user, this exchange > appears to be an argument (sometimes nasty) between two philosophers. > Because, as is the case in all philosophical arguments, the vocabulary is > esoteric I cannot profit from reading the dialog. Not to say that my lack > of understanding is typical of other readers. > > Are there any readers of this discussion having a suitable pedagogical bent > willing to present the issues to those needing education? > The older init systems have had a bunch of problems, and workarounds, built into them over the years. A newer init system attempted to solve a bunch of problems, and in doing so, broke with established conventions, so it both fixed stuff, and broke stuff. There is a lot of argument over the importance and value of the fixes, individually, and in aggregate, as well as the breaks, individually and in aggregate. Beyond that, I can't really do justice to explaining the arguments without weighing in (even accidentally) with opinions... suffice to say that because the init system is a very broadly used portion of the operating system, it has a very large number of user opinions that come with it. -Ronabop _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug