> > Lennart said systemd will only ever run on Linux and is only designed
> > for a full fledged Fedora but is useful on embedded too. However I
> > don't think he realised what level the Linux embedded world could
> > expand to.
>
> As far as I know, Archlinux does not target non-x86 embedd
On 2012/8/16 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Lennart said systemd will only ever run on Linux and is only designed
> for a full fledged Fedora but is useful on embedded too. However I
> don't think he realised what level the Linux embedded world could
> expand to.
As far as I know, Archlinux does not
> If their are 1000 users, for example.
> This is a split: 100 use Arch init script, 200 use Fedora init script,
> 300 use Debian init script, 400 use Megeia init script
> This is a unify: 980 use Systemd and the same service files, 20% Arch
> users chose to stay with initscripts.
>
> You can see
On 2012-08-15 17:11, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>
> So, with initscripts, we mount all the API file systems manually. When
> you put them in fstab as well, things fail. But when you want special
> options for those file systems, you won't get them.
>
> This very short systemd snippet showed that systemd
2012/8/17 Kevin Chadwick :
>> Of course, you are free to adopt as late as possible,
>
> We are free to adopt never just with a lower chance of any support. It
> may be difficult to keep a thousand packages in check, it should not be
> difficult to keep the few each person uses in check and there wi
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:25:46PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I wouldn't touch Avahi with a barge pole either.
Unfortunately I don't see any alternative to it. Can you point one out,
if any? I use it for bonjour protocol support.
Hi,
+1 for your post. I am really happy for the freedom too.
But what I feel is either systemd, GNOME and stuff would takeover linux
and drown. Or they will take over linux and flourish or they will be
separated into their own Linux space and isolated. I have got a big
feeling that they will
> Of course, you are free to adopt as late as possible,
We are free to adopt never just with a lower chance of any support. It
may be difficult to keep a thousand packages in check, it should not be
difficult to keep the few each person uses in check and there will
always be other distros without
On Thursday 16 Aug 2012 22:37:25 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Brandon Watkins
wrote:
> > Doing it later does not necessarily "minimize" problems, in fact it
> > can sometimes exacerbate problems.
>
> No it doesn't, quite the opposite actually.
>
> Here, I'm going t
Perhaps you're on the wrong distribution, Mr. Contreras. Based on the
wikipages on ArchLinux' philosophy, it's all about being simple, but
bleeding-edge, ahead-of-the-curve. According to one of the posts I've come
across, Systemd seems to be what other less-aggressive distributions are
using. Also,
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <
denisfalqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
> >> wrote:
>
heh I don't believe they fully understand how things work.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
> >> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> >> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
> >
> >
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>>>
A big switch like this will have prob
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>>
>>> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
>>> best to do it soon and g
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> Doing it later does not necessarily "minimize" problems, in fact it can
> sometimes exacerbate problems.
No it doesn't, quite the opposite actually.
Here, I'm going to do something that you are not doing, not just make
an unsupported sta
> On Wednesday 15 Aug 2012 18:54:24 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > Forking processes does not copy binaries.
> >
> > Pulled out of silence for the very very last time.
> >
> > It copies the parent which is much larger is what I meant. A real
> > problem for embedded where memory fragmentation matter
On Wednesday 15 Aug 2012 18:54:24 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > Forking processes does not copy binaries.
>
> Pulled out of silence for the very very last time.
>
> It copies the parent which is much larger is what I meant. A real
> problem for embedded where memory fragmentation matters to the point
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>
>> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
>> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
>> systemd seems to wor
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>
> > A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it.
> Its
> > best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For mo
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
> systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the
> fact that
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman
> wrote:
> > On 16 August 2012 01:21, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
> >> So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait?
> >> What's wrong with
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 16 August 2012 01:21, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait?
>> What's wrong with waiting another year, and see if you don't see so
>> many problems then? What's the hurry to break
2012/8/16 Fons Adriaensen :
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:12:58AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>
>> On 16 August 2012 03:46, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
>> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:25:05AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>
>> >> It is a new 'upstream' that we can rely on for running our GNU/Lin
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:12:58AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>
> > On 16 August 2012 03:46, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:25:05AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>
> > >> It is a new 'upstream' that we can
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:12:58AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 16 August 2012 03:46, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:25:05AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> >> It is a new 'upstream' that we can rely on for running our GNU/Linux
> >> systems. It so happens that
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> It is a new 'upstream' that we can rely on for running our GNU/Linux
>> systems. It so happens that this time it's a core part of the system
>> that's being 'standardised'. If you're not a fan of freedesktop.org,
>> then I'm afraid that's
On 16 August 2012 03:46, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:25:05AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>
>> Please think of systemd as the freedesktop.org specs for desktop files
>> or graphical interoperability between distributions (X11, d-bus).
>
> I'm trying to attach some meanin
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:25:05AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> Please think of systemd as the freedesktop.org specs for desktop files
> or graphical interoperability between distributions (X11, d-bus).
I'm trying to attach some meaning to that sentence, but so
far I can't.
> It is a new 'u
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Another point: Someone on the so-called "official" G+ stated:
>
> "Arch will move to systemd only boot process..."
True, but it basically links to
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023389.html
It's an unfort
According to Felipe Contreras:
#It is general knowledge that scripting languages are generally simpler
#than compiling languages.
#
#But fine, compare a few lines of rc.sysinit:
#
## mount the API filesystems
## /proc, /sys, /run, /dev, /run/lock, /dev/pts, /dev/shm
#mountpoint -q /proc|| mou
On 16 August 2012 01:21, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait?
> What's wrong with waiting another year, and see if you don't see so
> many problems then? What's the hurry to break people's systems?
Felipe, we've been doing that all along. This
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> [2012-08-15 15:03:21 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
>> > Everywhere:
>> >
>> > https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=systemd+boot+time
>>
>> You call that evidence? Did you even clic
> So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait?
> What's wrong with waiting another year, and see if you don't see so
> many problems then? What's the hurry to break people's systems?
Fedora still has grub2-beta which breaks multi-boot installs (a
documented problem!). I'll just
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
wrote:
>> cgroups, dbus, ipv6, udev, kmod, pam, libcap
>
> These dependencies just enumerate basic system administration tools in
> the form of libraries. A boot procedure relying on shell scripts would
> have the same dependencies as commands, tha
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:27:33 +0200
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chadwick
>> wrote:
>> >> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
>> >> those fleshed out on a page where I
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault
> wrote:
>> (1) and (2) could be done after the missing unit files rebuild is over. They
>> should probably be announced at the same time as I expect that some users
>> will prefer a fresh
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 15 August 2012 21:31, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> I just subscribed to this list, and 80% of the traffic I'm seeing is
>> problems with systemd. That should tell you something; systemd has
>> problems.
>
> Felipe, I understand where yo
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:21:25AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Here's one part
>
> A good design would make the init process which is always running and
> everyone must run.
>
> 1./ Be a small simple binary
>
> 2./ Have no dependencies
>
> 3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit be
> Forking processes does not copy binaries.
>
Pulled out of silence for the very very last time.
It copies the parent which is much larger is what I meant. A real
problem for embedded where memory fragmentation matters to the point
that Google had code written just to handle it. The smaller the
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Please think of systemd as the freedesktop.org specs for desktop files
> or graphical interoperability between distributions (X11, d-bus). It
> is a new 'upstream' that we can rely on for running our GNU/Linux
> systems. It s
On 15 August 2012 21:31, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I just subscribed to this list, and 80% of the traffic I'm seeing is
> problems with systemd. That should tell you something; systemd has
> problems.
Felipe, I understand where you're coming from, and I can feel you.
But, the fact remains that yo
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:27:33 +0200
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chadwick
> wrote:
> >> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> >> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
> >
> > Here's one part
> >
> > A good design wou
On 2012/8/15 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
>> > 1./ Be a small simple binary
>>
>> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
>> /sbin/init, but not by much).
>>
>
> Just 26 times as large and who knows how many times more complicated.
> Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
> >> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> >> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
> >
> > Here's one part
> >
> > A good design would make the init process which is always running and
> > everyone must ru
Am 15.08.2012 16:47, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
>> I already found another feature in
>> systemd that people always wanted for initscripts, but was too hard to
>> implement,
>
> After posting so much pointless and wrong text aside from systemd can
> do some things a little quicker which we all know.
[2012-08-15 15:08:21 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> > [2012-08-15 14:01:16 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler
> >> wrote:
> >> > Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> >> >> No. The "services
[2012-08-15 15:03:21 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> > Everywhere:
> >
> > https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=systemd+boot+time
>
> You call that evidence? Did you even click on that link? Most of those
> results are of "fast" boot tim
> I already found another feature in
> systemd that people always wanted for initscripts, but was too hard to
> implement,
After posting so much pointless and wrong text aside from systemd can
do some things a little quicker which we all know. Why haven't you told
us this feature which would be wo
Am 15.08.2012 15:31, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> What argument? You _claim_ that it isn't simple, but you do not give any
>> proof for that claim.
>
> It is general knowledge that scripting languages are generally simpler
> than compiling languages.
Here I wanted to stop discussing with you, but
On Aug 15, 2012 3:32 PM, "Felipe Contreras"
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Thomas Bächler
wrote:
> > Am 15.08.2012 14:01, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler
wrote:
> >>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> >> 1./ Be a smal
On Aug 15, 2012 3:32 PM, "Felipe Contreras"
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Thomas Bächler
wrote:
> > Am 15.08.2012 14:01, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler
wrote:
> >>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> >> 1./ Be a smal
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Felipe Contreras <
> felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
>> wrote:
>> > On 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thom
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
> wrote:
> > On 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler
> wrote:
> >>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Con
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 15.08.2012 14:01, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> 1./ Be a small simple binary
>
> The systemd main binary is not very
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Rémy Oudompheng
wrote:
> On 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> 1./ Be a small simple binary
>
> The systemd main binary is not very large (l
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> [2012-08-15 14:01:16 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> > Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> >> No. The "services" (in systemd lingo) should be in an interpreted
>> >> languag
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> [2012-08-15 13:31:10 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
>> If you are making the claim that systemd is
>> faster, you should have clear undeniable evidence at hand, where is
>> it?
>
> Everywhere:
>
> https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=syste
[2012-08-15 14:01:16 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> >> No. The "services" (in systemd lingo) should be in an interpreted
> >> language: e.g. shell.
> >
> > Why should they be? As far as I unders
[2012-08-15 13:31:10 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
> If you are making the claim that systemd is
> faster, you should have clear undeniable evidence at hand, where is
> it?
Everywhere:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=systemd+boot+time
Stop looking at your belly button for a minute and p
On 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> 1./ Be a small simple binary
The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
/sbin/init, but not by much).
>>>
>>>
Am 15.08.2012 14:01, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> 1./ Be a small simple binary
The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
/sbin/init, but not by much)
> > /sbin/init from sysvinit alone is useless. What is your point?
>
> The rest are rather simple scripts (in the case of Arch Linux).
>
> And you are still ignoring the fact that systemd is anything but
> *simple*. How convenient to ignore that argument.
Those "simple scripts" are written in a
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
1./ Be a small simple binary
>>>
>>> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
>>> /sbin/init, but not by much).
>>
>> But that binary alone is useless, and certainl
Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>>> 1./ Be a small simple binary
>>
>> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
>> /sbin/init, but not by much).
>
> But that binary alone is useless, and certainly not *simple*.
/sbin/init from sysvinit alone is useless. Wha
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
>>> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
>>> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
>>
>> Here's one part
>>
>> A good design would make the init process
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> [2012-08-15 12:27:33 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chadwick
>> wrote:
>> > 4./ be as fast as possible
>> >
>> > systemd meets 4.
>>
>> I agree in general, but systemd doesn't meet #4; we are supposed to
Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
>> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
>> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
>
> Here's one part
>
> A good design would make the init process which is always running and
> everyone must run.
>
> 1./ Be a
[2012-08-15 12:27:33 +0200] Felipe Contreras:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chadwick
> wrote:
> > 4./ be as fast as possible
> >
> > systemd meets 4.
>
> I agree in general, but systemd doesn't meet #4; we are supposed to
> believe that's the case, but does it really?
Are you trying
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
>> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
>
> Here's one part
>
> A good design would make the init process which is always running and
> everyone must run.
>
>
> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
Here's one part
A good design would make the init process which is always running and
everyone must run.
1./ Be a small simple binary
2./ Have no dependencies
3./ Be easy t
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 12:20, Brandon Watkins wrote:
> >> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against
> >> upstart or OpenRC
> >>
> > Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from
> > lennart'
On 08/14/2012 12:55 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
>> our repositories for some time and
On 14 August 2012 12:20, Brandon Watkins wrote:
>> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against
>> upstart or OpenRC
>>
> Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from
> lennart's site...
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
This table look
> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against
> upstart or OpenRC
>
Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from
lennart's site...
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault
> wrote:
> > Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful
> administrative
> > features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been
> around in
> > our repositori
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:55:28 -0400
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
> > Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful
> > administrative features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it
> > has been around in our repositories f
On 14 August 2012 11:58, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 08/14/12 17:55, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
>>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has b
On 08/14/12 17:55, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
>> our repositories for some time and that
On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough
> for pro
79 matches
Mail list logo
