[arch-general] SystemD poll

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Murphy <thegerdur at 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