On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Bjoern Franke wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 25.07.2012, 20:42 +0100 schrieb Leonidas Spyropoulos:
>
>> Maybe it's just my idea but I think the system is somewhat faster on
>> the booting now.
>>
>> Just my opinion but as I see initscripts are abandoned and Archlinux
Am Mittwoch, den 25.07.2012, 20:42 +0100 schrieb Leonidas Spyropoulos:
> Maybe it's just my idea but I think the system is somewhat faster on
> the booting now.
>
> Just my opinion but as I see initscripts are abandoned and Archlinux
> is a bleeding edge distro, it's natural solution to adopt sy
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> ... We want valid opinion here
> not bashing.
>
> Bash even is smaller than systemds core binary...
At this point in the discussion it is clear that Bash has been written for
bashing.
Just try not to take everything so seriously...
--
R
> If the system is so borked and you dont have the busybox around, you can
> also delete the root=whatever from the kernel command line and you will get
> a (initramfs) prompt. Then you can use it as a quick'n'dirty rescue system.
This assumes the user is knowledgeable too. If a script fails chan
> > Nevertheless, this overall good opinion can't hide certain (or significant I
> > might say) worries. Your system now relies in a bunch of binary code that
> > might not be posible to workaround if something goes wrong. Scripts may not
> > be
> > as efficient but they are great in order to skip
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:44 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> i think the likelihood of this is extremely low -- if your binary is
> so borked it can't run at all, methinks none of your binaries will run
> (since you have probably messed up the dynamic linker or something).
>
I'd have thought tha
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Aitor Pazos wrote:
>>
>> Right, because /sbin/init isn't binary and none of the scripts relied
>> on a interpreter that wasn't binary code?
>
> They are indeed, but it's a matter of size. The size of /sbin/init is 40.592B
> and /usr/lib/systemd/systemd 866.576B, w
>
> Right, because /sbin/init isn't binary and none of the scripts relied
> on a interpreter that wasn't binary code?
They are indeed, but it's a matter of size. The size of /sbin/init is 40.592B
and /usr/lib/systemd/systemd 866.576B, which is a huge difference. Init
responsabilities are much m
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Aitor Pazos wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> My experience with systemd is a +1 as well. I use it in my laptop and it
> provides a nice experience for a desktop user. Starting services on demand,
> suspend support and all other features gives a nice experience for an end
Hi everyone!
My experience with systemd is a +1 as well. I use it in my laptop and it
provides a nice experience for a desktop user. Starting services on demand,
suspend support and all other features gives a nice experience for an end
user.
> Maybe it's just my idea but I think the system is
Hey all,
I just wanted to share my experience with you. I follow closely the
changes and discussion about systemd and I have to say that in the
first I was worried also that taken away the basic configuration from
rc.conf will be complicated and will cause more pain.
I usually enjoy breaking my co
11 matches
Mail list logo
