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

Myra Nelson myra.nelson at hughes.net
Mon Jul 23 11:47:46 EDT 2012

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Paul Gideon Dann <pdgiddie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 22 Jul 2012 15:14:13 Myra Nelson wrote:
>> My comparison to file size was meant to be extended to the complete
>> removal of rc.d and conf.d or the removal of several files in those
>> directories. Maybe that concept is not that important. I didn't mean
>> to imply the KISS principle was about size, just trying to imply this
>> change doesn't necessarily violate that principle.
> When I read about file sizes, my immediate thought was that it's being used as
> a metric for simplicity of configuration.  Did noone else think this?  If the
> configuration file sizes are small, this might indicate that it won't be a
> nightmare to configure.
>> My main argument
>> was "If I can get this done anyone can. It's not that much different,
>> it's just different". It appears to me to be just as portable as the
>> current setup and it might just save the Devs some time, and provide
>> better integration with upstream devs. Another salient point is just
>> because it's been done that way since Moses was a baby doesn't make it
>> right. Sorry if I offend anyone.
> Thank you for sharing this Myra; I think this is a helpful argument.  The
> lesson seems to be: systemd is not difficult to use; it's just new, shiny, and
> different.  Don't be scared of it.
> As for me, I haven't made the switch yet mainly because I haven't had the time
> to look into it properly.
> Paul


A voice of reason in the darkness. The size comparisons were a silly
comparison to such BS in another thread about systemd. You seem to be
the only one who picked up on the central point of my argument. If a
half brain dead old woman can do this with minimal problems the
younger generation shouldn't have any problem with it.

Thank you very much.


Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

More information about the arch-general mailing list