[arch-general] Arch's move to systemd integration

Nicholas MIller nick.kyky at gmail.com
Sun Jul 22 15:17:37 EDT 2012

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson at hughes.net> wrote:

> 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
> /usr/lib/systemd/system.
> 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.
> https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#label/archlinux%2Fgeneral/138ad0e074447461
> https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#label/archlinux%2Fgeneral/138ab21f72d9bc2a
> https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#label/archlinux%2Fdev-public/138a6cee47d8ba96
> Myra
> --
> Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

Your links will only work for you,
they are links to messages in your gmail inbox

More information about the arch-general mailing list