-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 > Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 schrieb Curt Howland: >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Mike Bird <mgb-trinity@...> >> wrote: >> > Gnu/Linux probably does need a new init, and something along the >> > lines of the core 1% of systemd with optional cgroups support would >> > be a good approach. >> >> Just like X, sysvinit was proclaimed in need of replacement many years >> ago, for many reasons. >> >> The problem is that the functionality of these packages has been built >> over time to answer particular problems. Any new system is going to >> have to go through exactly the same process, the slow evolution of >> "Gee, I didn't think anyone used it for that." >> >> Sysvinit allowed for parallel boot without changing "everything". And >> it's especially good at being able to change pretty much any single >> component without a reboot. >> >> This kind of flexibility will, I believe, turn out to be more >> important than the systemd developers believe it to be. >> >> I will echo that, being just a user, I am happy to use whatever works. >> >> > I thank Tim and Sl�vek and others for making TDE optionally work >> > with systemd without depending upon systemd - unlike Debian where >> > systemd proponents are frantically changing packages to unnecessarily >> > require systemd. >> >> Indeed. Thank you. >> >> Curt- >> > > Just some system-rafiness from debian jessie: > > Logfiles are binary. So you can't simply boot with a live disto and look > at the logfiles. Better even, there are no persistent logfiles by default. > Well, who would care to look at logfiles, anyway? > > systemd/logind/journald/networkd/usersession share PID 1. Great, if > somthing there goes haywire you have to reboot the system, 'cause you > cannot kill one of these processes individually. On the other hand, who > would ever have a system running more than a week, now that it's booting > so fast? Well, and for the Windows user we have implemented the "reboot > after upgrade"-feature at last. Now isn't that great? > > Maybe these points are of no value for desktop users, but it's essential > in my business that systems run reliably and can quite well be fixed > remotely. That's not the case with systemd any more. It's diametrically to > unix philosophy. It's more like "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to > find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" than > "Freedom of choice" > > If systemd will become mandatory on Debian I already see myself packing > things up and move to an other Unix land. Well, hopefully TDE will work on > FreeBSD or OpenBSD then :-) > > Nik I don't see how they could get away with this on servers; uptime is typically measured in hundreds of days here and is only interrupted when a kernel update is required (e.g. when upgrading to another Debian/Ubuntu version). TDE will not intentionally introduce a hard dependency on systemd; personally I hate the DBUS design and implementation and have avoided it wherever possible. Even the new hardware library can have all DBUS-related code disabled (albeit with some loss in functionality). Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iFYEARELAAYFAlQbQrsACgkQLaxZSoRZrGFV1ADfbno97D6EPgSdTJgTJxI7leds cjLrDi5bgeJDjQDgqNgeUXLs8Ew4R3/JbEzj/nqJR7rO9tNvxY1G5g== =nIFO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----