On 02/10/2016 12:53 PM, Jack L. Frost wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote:
What does this mean? It means that I prefer a linux distribution that supports the newest changes in the linux development. Systemd is one of thesee changes. Systemd improves a lot of stuff. There is a reason why all other big distribtions are also moving to systemd. It's the future. All the shellscript-based init systems are the past.
As another person on here said, change is not progress. It's new, but it's debatabe if it's a net positive.
"change is not progress" has no bearing on whether systemd is a net positive or not. The person you responded to explicitly said -- in the very part you quoted, no less! -- "systemd improves a lot of stuff", so clearly they're _not_ relying on the fallacious reasoning of "change = progress"... so why bring it up unless you're just being argumentative for no good reason?
I really think that Arch Linux shouldn't be a rock in this flow of development. We should do it like fedora and support it. We shouldn't help to tube-fed all other init systems.
Furthermore there will be (maybe) kdbus in the kernel. Kdbus is at the moment still systemd only. I am sure there will come more systemd-specific interfaces for the kernel. Kdbus is just one example.
A detour from the point of this discussion, but I don't think that's a good thing that the kernel might actually depend on systemd in some ways.
Other way around: systemd may at some future point depend on a Linux-only IPC protocol. (One assumes that this would be indirectly via a DBUS-like client library, but whatever...) (Kind of ironic considering your point about ignorance.)
3. The ISO and Arch Linux installation process If Arch Linux would support openRC we would have to offer two ISOs. One with systemd and one with openRC.
What? Why? Having a handful of new packages in the repos doesn't mean anything has to change. If you want to be extra nice about it, then maybe a separate base group (base-openrc or something), but not a separate iso.
Also the way of the installation process would be different.
Not by much. You're overestimating the whole thing greately.
There's a huge difference between "I maintain systemd-free systems for my own use" and "I maintain packages for a very popular distribution". The latter has to work in a huge number of cases you haven't thought of. Anyway, can we please end this thread now? It's not constructive. Regards,