...

If you want to believe that change for the sake of change and corporate self-interest have no influence (big or small) in software development, you are free to have and state that opinion, but before condemning me it is worthwhile keeping something in mind. Whether I am right or wrong, whether people agree or disagree with my opinions, at least I am consistent. I do not post contradictory opinions and vacillate on issues. Such as vigorously defending systemd, while stating I hate it enough to avoid any distribution that uses it. Then after a few months post that I like it.

I was not talking about software in general, but specifically about your claim that Xorg is working fine (not even its developers think that) and is replaced because it is old and in the name of progress. It is quite obvious that you either ignore the reasons for the development of Wayland, or simply are not aware of them. Either way you are simply not qualified to discuss that issue and I would consider telling people "It is replaced because it is old and there is corporal self-interest" to be nothing more than FUD.
You may want to re-read my posts about systemd. Just a few points about this comment:
- What you call "defending systemd" was actually fighting FUD and misinformation about it. If you have followed the systemd threads you will see that many systemd opponents just are repeating factually wrong points they have read on a random blog without thinking it over, studying systemd or even just once try it themselves, sometimes even bragging about how they actually have no clue on that topic.
- I have switched my servers from Debian to non-systemd systems not because I hate systemd, but because I do not trust its developers (for now) to provide a stable software, something that is very important for servers. I think I have stated that clearly on forums.debian.net and LQ, both forums I know you are a member of.
- Yes, I was skeptical about systemd at first (though I can't remember that I have said that I hate it, maybe you can post a link), mainly because of the random FUD about it spread everywhere on the net. I took my time to look at its design and intended purpose and came to the conclusion that I actually like it. I can choose at boot time if I want to run systemd or OpenRC, so that I can test it for its stability in everyday use with having a fallback in case something with systemd breaks.

By the way, if being consistent means that you can not change your opinion on something when new facts arrive or you have studied that something a bit more then I happily forgo being consistent.

To TobiSGD specifically:

What is your position about the thousands of code lines in systemd calling assert()? Does that qualify as reliable and robust design?

I avoid systemd because I dislike Poettering's attitude to other *nix and general arrogance. Other individuals and distros can do what they like. I said it before - choice is good, even a choice of init systems, but something which is clearly being pushed by Red Hat and overseen by someone who sees BSD as "irrelevant" is not something I will rush to adopt.

I have no position about that. I am not a coder and therefore simply don't have the knowledge which effects those assert() calls have for reliability and robustness.
That is why I am testing systemd in everyday use, for someone who is not a programmer that is the only choice to determine stability of any given program.

Ah, yes...I hadn't considered some of the complex needs of gamers. I, Myself have never been one. I understand now; there are situations where it offers some more complex options.

It's been my experience that if you're having a problem with ALSA, it's probably just "muted" if you have the alsa-utils package you can run the command: alsamixer and un-mute the master and the PCM.

It seems that most threads having any question about systemD (well almost every thread) end up with the same things repeated over and over. Perhaps they should be merged into a systemD megathread, as has been done for certain other topics that recurrently incur the same sort of repetitive passionate debate.

Tried that many times and it never changed anything, installed pulse and the audio worked.

Sorry, it is my fault... I thought you were a coder.

interesting; well...you got it to work - that's the important thing.

I use Debian stable and Debian testing. Debian stable does not have systemd installed. Debian testing has systemd installed.

I did have a problem for about 2 weeks during Debian testing boot. When boot got to "populating /dev" it would hang there for a long time, perhaps a minute, and then eventually continue the boot sequence. After a routine synaptic update the problem disappeared.

Other than that one problem I have not noticed any difference, either positive or negative, between sysVinit and systemd.

------------------------
Steve Stites

I just did a fresh install of unstable on a new Ultrabook. I thought systemd was installed, but apparently not. Just a few systemd libs.

Yes... come across this countless times. ALSA can be a pain in the arse but reading the manual and ensuring outputs are not muted in alsamixer usually gets it working.