Now lolnameless assumed that I assume that "all corporation is
inheritly evil". I am from Argentina but I am not the Che
Gevara :-).

And vharishankar assumed that I am against debian package
managment (you can run apt-get from command line; not a good
example for what I asked you). I am using Debian right now.

I've found in the paragraph above a good example (in the same
way I found in vharishankar paragraph about "layers on layers")
to paraphrase my opinion. Please don't assume what I assume
about you assume any more :-).

Milk and sugar are food. Your body needs food. You could
survive without coffee, GPS, cars and motorbikes. Indifferently
of what you "like" or even what you prefer or think, what you
"need" IS priority, especially in case of lack of resources.
Think carefully about your priorities and you will be able to
get real benefit of the options that your environment gives you.
Do this and be sure I will agree with you indifferently of what
you've chosen.

You may assume that what you consume hasn't relation with what
you really need in the same way vharishankar think in userland
like an isolated entity from base system. Well both
assumptions are wrong. Guys, stop "assuming" and start to think
and ask yourselves "why".

And this is my last post about.

Let me put it a bit more bluntly. You can - and many Slackers seem to do so - prefer to use a full-blown Desktop Environment with all the bells and whistles, and yet prefer a no-frills KISS approach to system administration.

Well, I admit I am unable to get the point.

Not your fault, I think I am not understanding your posts as well as I should.

kikinovac has expressed the point I wanted to make in simpler terms. Of course, while we might not agree on the exact tools to administer the system or our choice of desktop, I think the majority of us would admit that we all want Linux to remain a *nix-based system at heart. From the technical information and discussions I read online, (and mind you, I am no expert) systemd seems to be driving Linux more towards a Windows-like approach, giving up a lot of *nix simplicity and opting for a more opaque interface with less interoperability with other *nix-like kernels. This has the potential to upset many developers working on cross-platform applications for UNIX-like operating systems.

P.S. I read on a mailing list (probably Debian's) that it would be impossible for a distribution to support both SysVinit and systemd in practical terms. It has to be one or the other.

he/she was talking about the dependencies of kde desktop not just systemd. the more stuff you want the more complex and less "KISS" things get. I like KDE but I don't see "KDE" as a simplistic desktop like xmonad for example that is the perfect definition of a KISS desktop.

I like the fact of Slackware running minimal processes in the background. Do I like its lack of automation in some cases? No.

Its all give and take. You win some and lose some. Its not black and white.

For a while, Debian testing (Wheezy) seemed to support a curious mix of both. That's at least what I could figure out. I remember wanting to add a simple script to startup to start my firewall, that could be invoked by something like "service firewall start|stop|restart", and I even succeeded to do so. After wading through quite some cryptic documentation (both online and on paper) and feeling like the village idiot on Debian forums. One of the things that decided me to come back to Slackware. If I don't have a high enough IQ to understand all this new startup stuff, then so be it.

Debian uses SysVinit by default. The systemd package is in the testing repositories and installing and using it requires jumping through some hoops at the moment.

But yes, Debian has its own tools to manage the underlying system. The "service" command is a simple wrapper to run the sysvinit scripts in /etc/init.d/.

arch linux will also switch to systemd
https://plus.google.com/u/0/11554768...ts/J1pP3DaSc2o

(this is just an information, personally I use what a distribution provides, and as long as it works I do not care about details where I have to less knowledge about for having an opinion)

"Slackware of course, is, well, Slackware."

What is this suppose to mean?

1 members found this post helpful.

What do you think it means? Lennart is not a fan. He is entitled to his opinion. He and many others are of the opinion that Slackware is living in the past. I don't see the need to debate the point, since those who disagree will rarely if ever convince those who agree otherwise and vice versa. I'd happily let him live in his buggy future-world while Slackware uses the same user-level software with stable underpinnings; unfortunately the seemingly certain forced assimilation by future user-level software may prevent such a scenario from being practical. I suppose with the announcement goes any chance of Arch devs patching high-level software for systemd independence and makes systemd exclusion a tougher proposal in Slackware.

No need to be rude, If I ask it, it is because I do not know. No, I won't debate about if systemd is a good thing or not, because I don't have enough skills about init system to know what is better and what is not.

ArchLinux has already been using systemd for some time now in /testing-branch but a lot of people were not too much in favor of switching from sysvinit to systemd because of the lack of debugging output channels.

Just like PulseAudio, people will try it out with the benefit of the doubt, see it for what it's worth, then dump it down the crapper after they realize it's a load of bull, and trying to make a wheel even rounder is a futile effort.

We Linux users complain when a company like Adobe doesn't make their software cross-platform, yet some of these developers are basically doing the same thing but even worse. It's one thing if a userland app doesn't run on Slackware (or the BSD's, of which I have a particular fondness) but sound, init systems, etc. are a greater concern. It sounds like it's their way or the highway. Pat -- fight the power as long as you can! :-)

6 members found this post helpful.

It's people like Lennart Poettering that are going to do damage the fundamental foundations of the broad spectrum of UNIX and UNIX-like kernels and distributions so much that eventually none of the systems can work together.

The SCO Group did enough damage attacking the Linux kernel trying to claim Linux used proprietary software of UNIX. Novell was professional enough, if not wholly nice, after their case against The SCO Group to openly state that UNIX and Linux were two separate entities and contained nothing controversial and wasn't interested in pursuing a case.

Now we have Lennart wanting to isolate Linux out even more from it's BSD and UNIX brethren with systemd, when software systems like sysvinit are cross-platform, open standard, and universal to the whole, not the one.

It's disheartening to see that so much effort, on the Linux side, has been placed into driving a bigger wedge between UNIX and Linux when more effort could be made to bring the systems together almost to a point each different kernel, module set, and core system tools could be drop-in/drop-out swappable.

There needs to be more effort to get the GNU operating system back on track as to what it was, is, and should be. An open system with free software able to use multiple standards of kernels and modules equally, yet independently within the system, and equally with the system.

It shouldn't matter if you use a HURD, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Illumos, or heck even a Windows or DOS kernel... a GNU system should work across all platforms with only minimal changes made to how it is interfaced with, such as the BASH Shell.

3 members found this post helpful.

Yes, in the *nix world, cross-platform portability and UNIX-like base is what has got Linux a reputation for stability and reliability as compared to Windows. Cross-platform portability is what has attracted developers on either side to develop applications that work well in both BSD and Linux.

Give up the UNIX-like base (systemd appears to be breaking with the *nix tradition in quite a significant way) and you give up what Linux has stood for, for a lot of us. In any case, Linux has been moving slowly away from the *nix roots for a while now. It appears that we end users have no choice but to embrace it or use one of the BSDs for instance (a bit impractical for a lot of us due to lack of hardware support for many modern peripherals).

I just ask a question quite seriously. If most mainstream distributions gave up SysVinit, how long would Slackware (or any single distribution) be able to resist the change? If application developers started hard-coding their dependencies on systemd what choice would we have in the future?

Of course, those who are not worried or do not care about this issue would disagree.

Theoretically any system could hold out switching to systemd as long as tools exist to allow so. This however is not the case as Lennart has been adamant that he wants systemd on every Linux distribution without regards for what the developers of each distribution want. Udev has already been merged into the systemd code, so it's only a matter of time.

That is unless an alternative device and kernel initialization system that can effectively replace sysvinit which remaining cross-platform and kernel independent can be created.

There was talk once of eINIT/kyuba being able to effectively replace sysvinit and other standard init systems while remaining as a true cross-platform UNIX init system, but the project stalled and hasn't been active as of late, and no more information seems to exist.