On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:42 PM, David Timothy Strauss
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Farning wrote:
>> Now my philosophical sticking point is how big pid1 should be to do
>> what it needs to do. Practically, I am trying to understand where
>> those boundaries
to do
what it needs to do. Practically, I am trying to understand where
those boundaries should be and how to communicate that information.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, David Timothy Strauss
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:47 PM, David Farning wrote:
>> Several of the ground bre
I wanted to take another pass at a brief intro blurb. It can take a
lot of passes to prune the vast amount of information in the wiki into
a few paragraphs that someone can quickly read.
As someone new to this space I keep coming back to two reoccurring themes:
1. Users expect systems to be dynami
Is anyone aware of any talks comparing systemd and launchd? Several of
the ground breaking ideas in systemd seem to come directly from
launchd. It would be interesting to hear about about why some ideas
were used and others were left behind.
I am not trying to second guess... just understand the d
I took a stab at a draft intro section for the fd.o wiki.
---
Systemd manages system startup and UNIX services. In recent years,
computers have become more dynamic. Servers are turned on and off to
balance performance and resource usage. Desktop hardware is attached
and detached as necessary. App
at 8:29 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:48:26PM -0600, David Farning wrote:
>> I would would be happy to work on upstream wiki site to help with
>> communication But I want to be careful not to overstep.
> Hi,
>
> quite a few people w
Over the last couple of weeks I have been looking over and testing the
systemd. Thanks for all the hard work and interesting ideas.
One issue that has come to mind is the quality and structure of the
documentation. The quality and clarity of the documentation can be as
important as the quality and
