On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Murphy <thegerdur@gmail.com> wrote:
Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better? I'm newish to Unix style operating systems
As I said; they are tried-and-true since *decades*, all the problems have been ironed out by slow small changes, so if somebody has problems they are probably hitting very few people.
Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make the big switch (which is clearly not now).
"Bleeding edge"
Look it up.
So bleeding edge that it doesn't even boot?
Your assumption that the primary purpose of Arch is to be a long-term stable distro is misguided. Debian is over that way. Its not even like systemd is some new software that just appeared a month ago...
Wrong. I never assumed anything like that. What's the purpose of a distro that doesn't even work? You can try to be on the bleeding edge, and still try to not break things (that's what I have been trying for years with LFS, Fedora, and now Arch Linux). But if the system fails so much that it's basically unusable, I won't try to use it, and I suspect a lot (most) of Arch Linux users won't either. And the fact that some software is old doesn't mean it's stable. To this day I still use Arch Linux without PulseAudio (and I suspect a lot of Arch Linux users do as well). Is your argument that because PulseAudio is old, then I should use it, and I won't have problems? -- Felipe Contreras