On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:53:28 -0600
y...@marupa.net wrote:
> Which probably demonstrates why there's no hidden agenda going on surrounding
> systemd and there were legitimate reasons why it was finally chosen.
Of course there were legitimate reasons, but only those reasons that are
important for
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 10:53:51 +
Jack wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 05:11, Eric Newcomb wrote:
> > Technical issues aside, I went through the list of members of the
> > tech-ctte, found here: https://www.debian.org/intro/organization. I
> > searched each name on the list on Google, and I can't hones
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 19:30:08 -0600
y...@marupa.net wrote:
> For example, initscripts are so VERY not portable. I am sorry to say this,
> but
> it is true. In theory they should be, as you state, according the UNIX
> Philosophy they should be. But here comes the problem of that philosophy
> ass
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:20:44 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> You grow up. Technically inferior stuff always seems to get the money,
> but you get to live in the results of your choices.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 19:00:40 -0600
y...@marupa.net wrote:
> > > Doesn't make the decision to drop SysV Init, a system
> I want to do number crunching, I don't want to be bothered by the boot
> process. It works. If I have to go make coffee while the boot process
> is happening, I'll go make coffee.
While your invisible guests are doing somthing similar inside your
computer? :D
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:52:40 +1100
Scott Ferguson wrote:
> Which is fine for you, and I can understand and appreciate that, for my
> own personal computers my sentiments are similar. However my business
> purposes involve meeting SLAs so reboots once or twice a year can cost a
> lot of money - so
6 matches
Mail list logo
