On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:55:28 -0400 Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@archlinux.org> 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 production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts on two init systems.
Any objections to start the migration process ?
Cheers,
Stéphane
I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC?
One advantage of systemd which people seem to overlook is its suspend support, bypassing pm-utils. The latter is broken, has a looooong list of open bugs and looks unmaintained. So +1 from me.
before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should revisit them.
Well, arch-general is a treasure troff... if you can search through 1000+ posts on the subject.
Calvin
-- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D