I do not concede it to be inevitable.

8 members found this post helpful.

sysvinit-2.89dsf

sysvinit's project repository has shown some activity, but it's been extremely minimal. The last updates were 6-7 months ago, so I doubt 2.89 will ever materialize and be released any time soon.

Even then no two distributions use the exact same set of programs from sysvinit.

I voted other. If the status quo isn't possible, then I don't particularly care so long as it reliably boots.

My concerns for a distro are more after it boots, that I'm not forced to recompile half the system to avoid pulseaudio for one.

3 members found this post helpful.

F*ck the status quo.

1 members found this post helpful.

I prefer it remain unchanged. If change must happen, then what ever our Slackware BDfL comes up with. It won't be the first time I've dealt with a major change that I did not exactly like. There is more to like about Slackware Linux than how it boots.

8 members found this post helpful.

Looks like there won't be a choice anyway.

Attached Thumbnails

 

8 members found this post helpful.

My cat says keep bsdinit. Not sure why....

1 members found this post helpful.

Other. For me right now that means "it ain't broke, so don't fix it". I run only laptops and workstations, no current server hardware.

Slackware is the #1 Least Annoying OS I can buy, nothing else is worth it.
I imagine if Pat and team can package a systemd OS with more Slack, I'd try it.
Let the systemd project mature first, see how it goes. /2c

P.S. "Cloud" technology bores me, not enthusiastic. :-\

2 members found this post helpful.

The question of maturity is when. They keep adding more and more crap, so how is anything supposed to stabilize?

The main problem is now, most of these solutions aren't init solutions just service supervision toolkits.

1 members found this post helpful.

My problem with this poll is that it assumes that (irrespective of systemd) Slackware might have chosen to change init. I think that is highly unlikely.


What you have apparently not considered is why Slackware would need change. The only reason the init might need to change is because certain other components bundled with systemd (e.g. udev, logind) are increasingly needed by other parts of the OS. A switch would be to gain the bundled components (since they are increasingly difficult to separate from the rest of systemd). None of the non-systemd suggestions listed above bundle equivalents, so none of them solve this problem and hence none of them would be selected to replace the current init.

Only two options are valid, remain with the current init and find solutions for the bundled components (I favour this and hence selected other) or Slackware could switch to systemd. I am not aware of any reason to believe that Pat wants a new init. It is just that his hand might be forced towards systemd if no long term solution is found for udev, logind, etc.

13 members found this post helpful.

It doesn't need activity because it is a mature piece of software where the major issues and bugs have already been ironed out.

So you prefer change for the sake of change?

So why should Slackware change again??

5 members found this post helpful.

Heh, I was wondering who'd bite on that word. ;-)
It's my impression they are not finished re-writing the community to their image of Linux yet. When all the world is unit, we'll see what's left.

I really appreciate the people working on an alternative future, bazaar preferred. Thanks.

I voted other. I'm all for keeping things as they are for as long as possible, or even longer...eternity, even. It ain't broke, etc. Shoot the dog, it will become a martyr for the anti-systemd cause and will end up in Paradise with 72 virgin bitches.

5 members found this post helpful.

Went here to say exactly what ruario said. Considering what he said and how Slackware is developed (at Pat's will) this thread makes no sense.

7 members found this post helpful.