The point I am making is that Linux is moving away from a modular system open to change, choice and reconfiguration to one where one person or small group of people decide to hard code something into the system. And this is being hard coded in my opinion since it forces it to be installed as a default with no other option given and required for example if you want to use Gnome. This system has been shown to be troublesome, is only one of many ways to handle the boot process, and forcing other distributions to either accept it or fall by the way side. A rather strong arm tactic of Microsoft. I loved Linux because of the freedom to choose, modify and configure it to what I want and need. Right now there are only two distro's left that do not use systemd and soon there will be none. This is madness. Systemd is a kludge, poorly designed, overly complex. and too convoluted leaving it open to being cracked and its host system compromised by the crackers of the world. Until ALL the bugs are out and it has proven itself to be 100% stable and 100% secure it has no business being a part of a stable operating system. We users in this world should not be the beta site for this system.
On Friday, October 10, 2014 12:16 PM, James Ensor <belgianpain...@gmail.com> wrote: Please reply to the list and not directly to me. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM, PETER ZOELLER <peter_zoel...@rogers.com> wrote: > Hi: > > I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to remove systemd but be given a choice as to > which one I want at the time of the install just as I choose my file system, > my software, my networking, where I want my boot loader installed, etc. To > assume on your part what I need or want and then expect me to counter your > choice by requiring me to uninstall is rather presumptuous on your part just > the same approach that I would expect from Microsoft not Linux. > > Peter > I made no assumptions, as I had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of making systemd the default init system. I merely point out that it is possible (and quite easy) for a debian-user to remove systemd. If you do not want systemd to *ever* be installed on your system, well then that's another discussion that does not belong in this thread. > > On Friday, October 10, 2014 11:01 AM, James Ensor <belgianpain...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, PETER ZOELLER <peter_zoel...@rogers.com> > wrote: > >> This is really ticking me off. We are becoming just like Microsoft that >> one >> size fits all. Linux has always been about choice and modularity and >> reconfigurability where a user or admin can choose that what suits him/her >> and the type of system they want. You want sysvinit you use Debian or >> Slackware, want Upstart go to Ubuntu, want systemd go to Fedora/Redhat. >> Where in all this is my choice to have my system boot via the means I or >> any >> user or admin considers to be the appropriate method to boot their system? >> What's wrong with you people? Have you lost sight of why Linus designed >> this system? Its about simplicity, modularity and reconfigurability. >> This >> approach with systemd flies in the face of all this. Its like demanding >> that you can use only ext4 as your file system. > >> >> > > The point of this thread was to demonstrate that you *do* still have a > choice. It's relatively simple to remove systemd from your Debian > installation if you choose to. > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cafxvjvcwwja8utkpqdraxbetpwtgq8u7tvt-g7h9_iqjj8n...@mail.gmail.com
