Hey!

Looks like it's only a matter of time before Nautilus and Totem will be hard dependencies for udev.

1 members found this post helpful.

If anyone is unsure of the udev motivation:

I keep thinking over the years, why keep breaking things which work well and do it all over again? I sense a fundamental restlessness in the Open Source community that mistakes anything new as progress. Especially in Linux, I am finding the whole issue so wasteful in terms of useful brain power. Even though it might be Open Source and all that, why waste so much time reinventing the wheel when there are more important and advanced problems to solve?

Why is SysVInit considered broken these days, all of a sudden? Has Linux suddenly become so advanced that we needed an entirely new system initialization manager?

Sometimes, I feel I want to give up Linux simply because of projects that reinvent the wheel, add layer upon layer of complexity on existing solutions and then break stuff before repairing.

8 members found this post helpful.

Don't ask me. I'm still trying to figure out what ConsoleKit is for.

5 members found this post helpful.

If that is a serious question, rather than being rhetorical, follow the link in post #41 for the rationale for a move to systemd.

Why do I still get emails from this unsubscribed thread?

I stumbled onto this thread this morning, and I find it sad that so many people would argue about something that may or may not happen to Slackware. I say that until (or unless) it actually happens, we're better off (at the very least, for the sake of our peace of mind) not engaging in a flame war. Pat V. and the Slackware team have remained true as much as possible to the KISS philosophy, and you can bet your bottom dollar they will continue to do so.

Let's trust them to do their jobs.

4 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the pointer.

Yes, it appears to be interesting enough technically, but again, will it become the de-facto future standard as envisioned by its promoters or will it lead to a further state of confusion with multiple kinds of init systems and device management on Linux?

My biggest objection is every time something new comes up reinventing existing functionality, it takes time to stabilize and get things working properly the way it was before. A lot of code would have to be rewritten to get things to work uniformly with the new system. And just to get back the functionality already existing with the old system.

why not just let it be. if it doesnt work out. then it will be ignored. i am currently using it happily with no problems. enjoying my fast boots and shut offs.

Well, I am going to give it a whirl on Debian and see for myself. I would like to see for myself what systemd offers.

Just one question. Does this involve getting rid of SysVinit completely in a way that it cannot be used as a fallback? I ask because I would like the option to revert to SysVinit without having to reinstall.

yes it totally gets rid of your sys v init.

I am happy with 3 different standards of distros. 1 uses sys v (centos) the other systemd (fedora) and Slackware uses both BSD and Sys V combined. They all have their specific purpose and audience.

I find it foolish to spread FUD over Microsoft, Sun, Red Hat... etc. big corps. Its like in the book 48 laws of power. To build a Cult you need to have a common enemy you can blame everything on.

This fear mongering doesn't work. In the end what works works.

Red Hat has contributed a lot to Linux. Linux Kernel is the most important part of a Linux OS. So how is Red Hat and its developers "enemies"... I don't get it.

Hmm... seems there are still some issues with systemd http://wiki.debian.org/systemd

If it get rids of sysvinit entirely (as I expected it would be the case), I think I'll wait.

As such, I am not blaming anybody myself, but fail to see the need for something new reinventing the wheel again and again, wasting so much time when there are bigger and more important problems to be solved. Particularly as I feel SysVinit was adequate for the job all these years.

1 members found this post helpful.

I read the interesting link on post #41 with interest and from the posting and the discussion related to it, it appears a lot like systemd is the classic case of a solution searching for a problem to solve rather than the other way round.

2 members found this post helpful.

It seems systemd moving forward for now. Arch Linux is transitioning to it very soon and so are a bunch of others. I say, give it a try and see if you like it. That's what I'm going to do.

1 members found this post helpful.