On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 20:54:50 (+0100), Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote:
> >>> I'd rather keep it as simple as possible
> >>
> >> you can still use sysvinit as init
>
> I read that trying to use sysvinit causes trouble and several things
> depend on systemd at the moment.
You can read almost any opinion you like on the web about sysvinit and
systemd. Many of them are wrong.
> > The shell scripts used by sysvinit are not simpler. More familiar maybe,
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
> > but not simpler.
>
> Simplicity can very roughly approximated by source code size.
> Do you think the systemd implementation of the fsck wrapper
> is simpler that "fsck -A"?
Not a fair comparison.
Sysvinit and systemd are just two init systems amongst many,
and they take very different approaches. You can use either
in Debian so please stop complaining.
> I hope GNU/Linux forks off as soon as systemd integrates an own
> kernel (systemk) and its reimplementation of Wayland (systemx)
> in one binary image blob, which for technical reasons will
> temporarily be called \EFI\BOOT\BOOTx64.EFI, but only until
> UEFI BIOS functionalities are fully integrated. Then you can POST
> and fsck in parallel, write units that depend on POST (so X won't
> start before POST passed! Imagine that!!) to form a clean, simple
> and modern-to-the-max system.
>
> SCNR :-)
Cheap. People here are trying to help, and you troll.
Cheers,
David.
