On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:08:32AM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
no flexibility is lost by moving to systemd, and really, much more gained: wider userbase, wider testbase, simple units to write, simple units to read, loosely coupled ordering, implicit dependencies, Grand Unified logging capabilities, and of course, much better speed/reliability/robustness.
That is probably all true. But there is one observation in Myra's post which I think is very much to the point: the fact that 'upstream' (in this case mainly Redhat), is driving Linux to become 'enterprise-friendly'. This is also very visible if you read Lennart's blog. There's in principle nothing wrong with that, unless the way this is done means that it becomes more difficult for a user to configure his system differently. Note that the aim in most enterprises is to take control away from the end user, even if he's sitting right besides the system. It is inevitable that anything that enables this goes against the interest of the individual user. I'm pretty sure that much of the resistance to systemd (and some other subsystems) exists because it is seen (and IMHO not entirely in error) as part of a strategy in that direction. And it certainly matters to Arch users who by definition are their own admins, and who want the flexibility without having to disable, bypass or fight things they don't need and that get in the way. Having to do that with other distros was what drove me to Arch. All this also means that it is futile to attack L.P. personally (as seems to happen) - he is just a clever and ambitious young man used as a pawn in a game that is much bigger than he is. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)