1) ^^^ that guy owns this website. you should heed his warning.

2) the battle is 'won' when the other side is completely dead, and its called 'attrition.'

3) It was a 'vote' and systemd got the most 'votes', if you don't like it, create your own distribution and make your own rules about changes. Or continue using el6 or whatever.

Oh, my I am so scared, it is not like this forum is the first or the last Linux/UNIX place on the net.
Also what about my language annoys you so much, is fanboy a swear word, race or religion now?

I think you are overstepping your authority.

Yeah, I am not dsiputing 2 here, I think I said that, there is also partizan warfare and total war with nukes, but I really don't think it is the place to further discuss military doctrine here.

Iirc the vote was deadlocked, it could have gone either way, Garbee was the tie breaker, and there was no serious consideration of keeping sysvinit or adopting openrc.

1 members found this post helpful.

You aren't discussing anything, not offering solutions, and you are insulting as you go. You are just complaining.

Good luck with your whinging.

--washes hands, walks away--

PS: Been using systemd since last year on Arch. No problems except initial rollout.

You are missing the point - windows and OSX also "work".

The reason why people are sticking to the technical issues on this board is because they would get banned for going "off-topic".

I have been banned for pointing out to the OP of another thread that that which he calls systemd "scripts" were in fact MS .ini files - i.e. configuration files - something which the man pages concede. For that, I was banned for going off-topic - my first post in that thread, I believe.

The other issues such as the Unix philosophy, GNU philosophy and the role of the big corporations - which now includes Red Hat - have had no space.

Systemd, uefi, clang etc. are all happening at the same time. If you believe in coincidence you must have great problems debugging programs

BTW - one can regard your response to vl23's post as inappropiate. You didn't have to respond. I have kept quiet most of the time. Where would we be if we spent our time criticising other posters - has s/he criticised you?

But don't worry - You won't get banned because you support systemd, therefore your remarks are "justified".

2 members found this post helpful.

The above is specious at best, and disingenuous at worst. LQ itself has absolutely no opinion when it comes to systemd, or any particular application/distro/whatever (and my personal opinion of systemd should be pretty well known and certainly doesn't support your assertion).

--jeremy

I am sorry, but I see no proof that what I said is false. Posters who are critical of systemd are being criticised by fellow posters and moderators. Posters who are critical of systemd may make derogatory remarks about Pottering (sp?) et al, but not about fellow posters. Yet, we are suddenly subject to criticism, ridicule and censorship. Even your post did not adress facts, but criticised me

In short - you have publicly called me dishonest - and if anybody is being frank and honest it is those who are criticial of systemd.

I have never seen an .ini file and am proud of it
THe UNIX and GNU ways of doing things are near and dear to my heart, as I have stated in other systemd discussions, thanks for bringing them up though.

uefi is something MS is pushing, and an addon to the EFI invented by HP and Intel, knowing those two I would have been surprised if it was not bad, really openbootprom should have replaced the plain old BIOS long ago, and EFI can be a dangerous attack surface/malware hideout according to some research, you could disable UEFI, TPM etc with the only side-effect being the inability to run Windows 8, that is not a bug, it is a feature IMO.
What is the trouble with clang?

I generally do not believe in trilateral/mason conspiracies, I do think however that it is not beyond the NSA to try and force a few companies to do its bidding, or for the US government to armtwist them into compliance with some money/access to lucrative contracts, however I doubt that they could plant bugs in all the hardware built everywhere and I think that somebody will catch on if that is happening.
There is Snowden as precedent, and there were also the grumblings about Intel hardware encryption.
Finally there is project ECHELON, which was public knowledge, when you factor in Moore's law, the expansion of the internet, and 9/11 and its aftermath the existence of something like PRISM should have been obvious.

Thanks again

Here I thought the topic was "Good potential replacement for Debian post-systemd".

As I said in my initial post in this topic Regardless of individual interpretation, or rewording of Shuttleworth's blog post if anyone feels so inclined to do that so they can twist it to say what they want, systemd is not as yet inevitable on Ubuntu. If it does go that way then there is always LFS. However cool heads should remain and give things a go without bias. If systemd works great, if it doesn't then switch to something else that doesn't use it and maybe switch again later when that distro starts using it.

Just to clarify that, I was the moderator that banned you for being off-topic in a thread that contained already several moderator warnings to not derail the thread any further. You were not being banned for pointing out that systemd uses ini-style unit files, but for implying that there would be some type of conspiration, because systemd uses that format. That was totally off-topic for that thread, and the fact that you did not post on-topic despite several warnings was what got you a 1-day timeout, not being for or against systemd.

1 members found this post helpful.

Perhaps Debian users could organise themselves and petition the more pro-active derivative distros - especially Ubuntu - that they not implement systemd. The prospect of winning users and developers from Debian might influence their decision.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

1 members found this post helpful.

I got NO warnings whatsoever. It was, I believe my first post on that thread and I believed that I was on topic - my consternation, by the way, was genuine - I was looking at files I'd known since Win 3.11.

I am disgusted that one cannot even express one's surprise about such matters.

I assumed, rightly, that the warnings were for the other posters since I was not even posting. So, for me it was a first strike and I was suspended for 24 hours. (and lost 10 points - whatever they are)

My post was clear - I corrected an error in the OP's statement and then expressed my consternation at what I had discovered. To correct a factual error is not off topic.

Did I imply "some type of conspiration"?

Please tell me what in this warning makes you think that this warning does somehow not apply to future posts made by any member of LQ or why it does not apply to off-topic posts about the format they have chosen for their unit files : http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5111941

Debian gained alot of users from Ubuntu because of the behaviour of Canonical and quite a few "Ubuntu Members". The Ubuntu Forums got to a stage where anytime anyone posted any constructive criticism against Ubuntu and Canonical in order to help Ubuntu and Canonical they were not treated very well. Ubuntu forums become very elitist, at a time when I was considering becoming an "Ubuntu Member" myself after being a development tester for a few years, and that was a behaviour I personally wasn't prepared to follow. If Ubuntu/Canonical want help from many of those ex users they really need to change their outlook on people who actually do want to help and not just follow a fanboy path.

How can the correction of a statement made by the OP be off topic? He called the ini files SCRIPTS. Scripts, as we all know, implies something quite different than configuration files - and that I expressed my consternation at the fact that they are Microsoft ini files in - what - one sentence? What sort of control-freakery is afoot here?

We, here, are completely offtopic. I had responded to jeremy and was done with the matter - indeed I hoped we could get back to business-as-usual.

But now you have taken the thread off topic.

I understand you - but can you not understand others? I wrote a relevant factual post - and then expressed my disgust - not at the fact the OP had made an error - but that I was looking at a file format that I have not seen since I switched from W95 to Slackware 8.0.

The point of the correction was that systemd did not give us the freedom of scripts, but the restrictions of configuration files.

Through out that thread, the OP had spoken about SCRIPTS and that sounded to me quite positive because scripts would give us a lot of flexibilty. Then he posted some examples of these scripts and that was the first time I had seen one.

Imagine my surprise when I saw that, not only were they NOT scripts, but that they were the old Microsoft .ini file formats.

What annoyed you, it seems to me, had nothing to do with my post being off topic - it wasn't. the post was on topic - but because I expressed a negative opinion about the format of those files.

I hope we can now close this matter. This isn't the sort of content with which we should be populating the threads. I hope we can go back to our habitual cool.

I recommend that everyone takes up pipe smoking

It could also be said that upstart may have gotten a lot more support if people voting were not aware of that problem with Canonical also.

Marky can talk of the importance of "community" all he wants but many of us know that the "community" he refers to is the one that agrees, unconditionally, with him.

This is really too bad but it is a fact.

Another fact is that a lot of what the kernel is doing is way out ahead of what the support structures, many that are very long in the tooth, are doing.

I am going to wait and see what happens.

There is BSD if it all goes south.