[arch-general] SystemD poll

[Leon Feng]

2012/8/25 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Stephen E. Baker
> <baker.stephen.e at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23/08/2012 4:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Is systemd ready? Where is the evidence?
>>
>>
>> https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics shows that about 14% of
>> arch users who are using pkgstat have systemd installed.  It is not default
>> and not depended on by anything, so that means a sizable portion of the
>> community has tried it.   The bug tracker isn't being flooded with critical
>> bugs against it so it must work for the majority of archers who are using
>> it.
>
> Not exactly. People might have installed it and never tried it (not
> very likely); or tried it, found problems, and disabled it (not so
> unlikely) (I did that). So it's not correct to say that it "must" work
> for the majority of users who are using it, but rather that it
> *probably* works for the majority of users who have tried it.
>
> That being said I see many problems in arch-general that are not
> reported in bugzilla, so I wouldn't trust bugzilla statistics blindly.
>
> And finally, the 14% that have tried it are probably early adopters,
> and they are not the same as the rest of the 86% of the user-base.
> Maybe they had problems, but the managed to solve them themselves.
> Maybe the rest of the 86% won't be so lucky.
>
>> Is that evidence?  If not, what would constitute evidence?
>
> That's evidence all right, but I would consider it weak evidence.
> Stronger evidence would be that RHEL has adopted it, or that the bug
> count in Fedora and openSUSE are low (they aren't), or that at least
> 25% of Arch Linux users have tried it. Any of those would persuade me.
>

Did you want a distribution adapt new software after RHEL or bug count
in Fedora and openSuse are low?  Then Arch is not such distribution.
You are current trying to redefine completely how Arch roll out
packages.

> But that was only one of my questions, the other one would be: What
> are the benefits vs. advantages of systemd? It would be nice of such
> analysis was made publicly, but if the previous question is answered
> (systemd is ready), this question is not as important -- the most
> important thing is not to break user experience (or have a very good
> reason to risk doing that).

You completely deny a software when you do not know "benefits vs.
advantages" of it. These info is no secret, There are lots of info in
the web. Further, you can read systmed mailing list and source code.
Do your own homework please.

Arch is a rolling release, the upgrade constantly require user manual
intervention. Just see http://www.archlinux.org/news/. The transition
to systemd is easier than lots of the intervention listed in the news.

Arch is not for users who do not want to get hands dirty. Try Ubuntu
instead, they are more easier for beginners.

>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras