[arch-general] Arch's move to systemd integration
myra.nelson at hughes.net
Sun Jul 22 15:11:11 EDT 2012
I've followed this discussion closely and, as can be seen in one of
the posts below, I initially objected to it. I had previously tried
systemd with little success. Next I carefully re-read all the
objections, complaints, rants, raves, etc, and decided to try systemd
again. This isn't the place for personal info but I think it's
relevant here. I suffer from early onset dementia so it takes me more
time to understand documentation and retain information. Most of the
time I have to start over everytime I work on something because no
matter how many times I've done it, it doesn't stick. That's one
reason I prefer the rc.conf file and initscipts, it's easy to
understand and keep track off.
I posted last night that it took me around 30 minutes reading and
editing to get my system booted properly. I was wrong. I still have a
couple of minor glitches, but nothing that breaks my system. I firmly
believe part of the problem is perception. Previously rc.conf held all
the information. On my system rc.conf is 716 B. The three files
(hostname 8 B, vconsole.conf 47 B, and locale.conf 30 B) take up less
space. Granted at the moment it's more but that will be offset when
the move to systemd can be completed. If I understand everything
correctly the conf.d and rc.d directorys will no longer be needed as
everything will be in /etc/systemd. The amount of disk space taken up
should, major caveat, be less because most of the files in
/etc/systemd/system/??? are soft links to the acutal files in
Yes, apparently, this changes(?) some of Arch's KISS principle, but
maybe it doesn't. Maybe it actually makes it easier in the long run.
If you keep /etc backed up, you do don't you, it's a simple matter to
set everything up whenever where ever.
I think the biggest problems here are "perception", resistance to
change - me, possibly some FUD, and no one likes being told what to
do. My main motivation for trying systemd again stemmed from realizing
I was using the same arguments I fought in another industry for years
"We've done it that way for 30 years and it works, why change now".
Don't think of it as change, think of it as "evolution". Everyone
believes in evolution, don't you? If this provides better integration
with upstream developers might that mean less breakage, patched
software, less complaints, and less bug reports to deal with for the
Arch Devs. I'm proof even old dogs can learn new tricks.
I'm open to discussion on any points I made about assumptions of what
will and won't be necessary when the systemd integration is completed,
ie conf.d and rc.d etc.
Links to previous discussions.
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
More information about the arch-general