[arch-general] Arch Linux and systemd

[Fons Adriaensen]

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)