Count me among those.

Patrick would ensure that it is implemented properly and with sane default settings, much like he did with PulseAudio.

3 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for reminding us of that thread. I'd missed it first time round because I didn't need to use systemd for work at the time and had little interest in it.

One thing I noticed about the date is that it was back in the time of more regular (almost annual) releases. I see my use of Slackware as a bit marginal. There are negatives as well as positives. I'm not about to go off on one just because it gets systemd, but adoption of systemd removes a key differentiator. For me Slackware's not a religion, always you have to weigh up pros and cons of different distros and I would probably switch to Arch if systemd happened as it would just tip the balance. I tried really hard to like MX Linux, but didn't get on with it, even though it's the obvious choice to avoid systemd.

1 members found this post helpful.

Decent... an actual response from experience. I am curious though, why do you think MX Linux is the obvious choice? I'm sure that I'm quite biased but I would've thought Slackware was the obvious non-systemd distro.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Apparently, insulted by the possible future lack of "key differentiator" which is the lack of systemd in Slackware, a particular someone will consider migrating from Slackware to MX Linux, which ships the systemd since years ago...

https://mxlinux.org/blog/about-mx-19-and-systemd/

Yes, it is truly possible to ran all systemd services and to use another "init system" than the one offered by systemd. As demonstrated already by MX Linux and others.

OK, let's go back to the ecosystem ran as PID EINZ and how much sucks the unit files...

2 members found this post helpful.

You should re-read the original articles prior to gloating.

In other words, you are proving yourself to be an idiot. Or someone who doesn't fully understand written English (which is not the same as being an idiot by any measure).

2 members found this post helpful.

On MX Linux you can choose from the GRUB's advanced screen which init system you use: the default SysV init or systemd init.

I tested myself this. They have both SysV init and systemd installed, but the user can choose which init system uses.

https://mxlinux.org/wiki/system/systemd/

and? how did it go?

I don't know anything about dual 'initing'.

If one tells grub use *d and you do systemctl this, systemctl that, then change your mind next reboot and tell grub sysv, what happened to all the systemctl this, systemctl that you did with *d?

or other way around, seems like asking for trouble.

Count me in that camp too.

3 members found this post helpful.

Looks like you forgot about the third choice: that I am a well informed individual, who even used MX Linux in the past.

But that's OK, because I seen already that the systemd hatters talks exclusively about their (Russian made?) myths, not about the real facts...

BTW, please look at the attached screenshots of MX Linux 18.3 (latest stable release)

Then, please excuse me that I feel again the irresistible need to "laugh like an idiot".

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Attached Thumbnails

       

1 members found this post helpful.

Please count me there too!

I truly believe that the Slackware init system is not my business, but exclusively Mr. Volkerding's business, and he will wise choose the best solution when the time will come.

2 members found this post helpful.

It's worth reminding ourselves of Eric's post on this matter, where he recently said he didn't foresee systemd adoption in Slackware because "there is simply no need for it":

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6014052

A point of technicality - systemd is not an init system, it's a software suite. It does a lot more than an init system.

5 members found this post helpful.

I'm not a developer, but a long time user and I have some thoughts on SystemD in general which I think are quite clear:
- I don't mind SystemD in itself, it even has good uses, I like that it exists
- I don't like the wide adaptation of systemd, luckily there are still systemd free options
- Dependencies is one of the main problems, why should packages depend on one init system or another? That's horrible design.
- The either SystemD or F-U approach. Different init systems should live together in harmony and be exchangeable. In my world GNU/Linux offers choice, not restrictions.
- "Do one thing and do it well". This core policy obviously does not apply to SystemD
- A tyrant does not belong in the GNU/Linux world. SystemD is making itself a tyrant. Don't do that!
- (eventually)Taking control of all the things that "Init" starts, BAD IDEA, let them live independent lives outside of SystemD. You don't need a huge blob to start a system!
- The risks associateed with "everyone" running a huge "unified software environment" at the core, both in terms of bugs and security risks
- The interdependence that eventually develops in a unified software environment. Soon we can't change anything related to SystemD without breaking something else or SystemD.

How many projects have now been worked into SystemD? It's impossible to keep control anymore, but surely things like Udev. And what packages are fully dependent on systemD at this point? I think any core packages and systems that are worked into, being worked into or fully dependent on systemD is now "part of SystemD" and the "unified software environment. How many things does systemD want to take full control of? Are there any limits? Where are the limits? And how many random "outer packages" will make systemD a dependency alike to what Gnome and Enlightenment did? Why does a desktop need to be dependent on an init system?

This at its essence is what I have against SystemD. I don't mind systemD and what used to be the core idea, but I hate the tyrant and the "unified software environment" and I think it's terrible for GNU/Linux in general. Eventually it might split the whole community, perhaps even the Kernel into corporate and newbie SystemD/Linux and the other camp of GNU/Linux or GNU/neo-Linux. Who knows.

I don't like that idea at all. The corporate SystemD/Linux community will be much bigger and turn into some bad monster, while the "free" GNU/Linux will become a small community again. Some people are just in it for freedom and choice, and I think this group of people is being neglected and sacrificed by SystemD. That's not only the "GNU" freedom people, but also anyone who cares about general freedom and choice, including many from the open source community whom will have to make some choices at some point.

11 members found this post helpful.

Poettering even says that systemd is the "core OS".

https://hasgeek.tv/fossdotin/2012-2/...as-the-core-os

Its goal is to make itself integral, irremovable and irreplaceable.

5 members found this post helpful.

I think that's a good term to use actually. "CoreOS".

CoreOS/GNU/Linux NO THANKS.
GNU/Linux YES PLEASE.

Nobody asked for a CoreOS. This is where the split might come in the future. Those who will eventually reject CoreOS and those who wount.

3 members found this post helpful.

You are wrong. RedHat asked for this CoreOS. And not only they asked for it, they also payed programmers to made it.

Looking at what happened in the last 10 years, there will be no such split. Because the remaining distributions which don't use (yet?) this CoreOS, apparently also does not have programmers to maintain that split. For example:

why there is no real UDEV fork and they just chop the EUDEV from systemd? What will happen when this chopping will not be further possible?

2 members found this post helpful.