LinuxQuestions.org
Page 23 of 113 « First 132122 23 24253373 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   The mass exodus if Slackware uses Systemd (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/the-mass-exodus-if-slackware-uses-systemd-4175523380/)

55020 11-06-2014 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL (Post 5265457)
Nietzsche, who was crazy probably due to tertiary syphilis.
Tertiary? Does that mean....? ... hmm, that's too much information :rolleyes:

http://youtu.be/hqMG1uPy0fo?t=2m53s

ivandi 11-06-2014 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by belka.ew (Post 5265295)
Are you looking for something like this? https://github.com/Dlackware/systemd/wiki and https://github.com/Dlackware/systemd (wiki should be updated soon).
Yeah exactly. Glad to see someone is already there:
Code:
# Set YES to set systemd as default init
SBO_INIT=${SBO_INIT:-YES}

# If you have set NO for default init, you need to change your boot loader startup
# Add the kernel parameter " init=/lib/systemd/systemd"
So what's the point in arguing over systemd vs sysvinit if we can have them both.

Cheers

coldbeer 11-06-2014 06:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philanc (Post 5265300)
"For the first time ever, we're not being given a choice in the matter." - Really?!?

Five years ago, what choice did you have, regarding the init system? :-)

I know about busybox, musl libc, clang, and I have read more than I need about runit, openRC and others... :-)

Look only at gcc. We cannot even today routinely build the kernel with anything else than gcc. And you really think that with systemd, for the first time, we are not given choice ?!?

(Note: I do not focus specifically on rkelsen's post here - just on this idea that suddenly "with the big bad systemd we no longer have choice" :-)
Technically there is a choice but effectively there is not. My understanding is that in the near future Slackware won't be able to stay with the same init system and supporting components, So a change will have to occur. I.e. The choice to stay with the same init and same supporting components is not a choice. So if that's the case, then no there isn't a choice.

Ford - "You have a choice in color as long as its black."

coldbeer 11-06-2014 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 (Post 5265370)

I will stop correcting you when you stop posting incorrect information. Standing by and not correcting you, when I know you are wrong and leading people astray, means I am implicit in your actions.
The problem with your post is that you're proclaiming you're the expert with that statement. So maybe if you would state your credentials then you would have more credibility. Otherwise why should anyone believe your the expert? ;)

brianL 11-06-2014 06:28 AM
There is, or will be, more to systemd than init. Read this, if you haven't already done so:

http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-...x-systems.html

It's been mentioned and commented on in several threads now.

Teufel 11-06-2014 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivandi (Post 5265476)
So what's the point in arguing over systemd vs sysvinit if we can have them both.
It's impossible to have them both. Once systemd will be adopted, sysvinit will be dropped. It's a law of nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO1WccH2_YM

Bindestreck 11-06-2014 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufel (Post 5265497)
It's impossible to have them both. Once systemd will be adopted, sysvinit will be dropped. It's a law of nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO1WccH2_YM
My mom told me nothing is impossible.

brianL 11-06-2014 07:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindestreck (Post 5265498)
My mom told me nothing is impossible.
Did you believe her? My mum told me there was a Santa Claus, I found out she'd been lying when I was about 40. Been traumatized ever since. :cry:

Bindestreck 11-06-2014 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL (Post 5265502)
Did you believe her? My mum told me there was a Santa Claus, I found out she'd been lying when I was about 40. Been traumatized ever since. :cry:
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...83/235/7e3.jpg

Teufel 11-06-2014 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindestreck (Post 5265503)
Obviously this picture is for those who believe in mommy's tales...

Bindestreck 11-06-2014 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufel (Post 5265505)
Obviously this picture is for those who believe in mommy's tales...
You should believe more in your mommy's tale, especially as a Gentoo user when she told you: "Stop staring at your GCC output, you have no life!"

bartgymnast 11-06-2014 07:59 AM
The init system is same as DE.
you have multiple choices, you can use them side by side.
KDE - GNOME - XFCE (to name a few)
sysvinit - Runit - systemd - RCopen
I know GNOME already made them statement that systemd will not be a hard dependency, in fact since 3.14 they are working with freebsd, to make sure it runs on their systems.
GNOME and systemd devs. had an discussion about it, and DE's should be talking to dbus.

I think the more interesting question to ask is,
UDEV what are we going to do about that.
Xorg vs Wayland, xorg-1.16 has a new module xwayland.so
this should also work without systemd.

As you can see, systemd is not required, its purely optional
at the end it is all about service and session management (exactly what systemd has to do)

cynwulf 11-06-2014 08:22 AM
systemd is not inevitable just because popular distros are rushing to adopt it - that's the "FUD" which none care to challenge. Almost every other Linux distro running standard sysvinit implementation did not force Slackware in the same direction for the last several years.

hybrid sysv/BSD style init is a fundamental part of what makes Slackware Slackware. If it wasn't, surely Pat would have just used the same setup as other distros years ago? I can see other software being dropped for depending on systemd before systemd itself is adopted. As yet the threat of software depending on systemd is just that - and there are always forks. Need will drive the latter - as is the nature of free software, if someone tries to force hard dependencies, someone else will fork it, or shim around it.

If other UNIX-like operating systems can survive without systemd - so can Slackware.

gazj 11-06-2014 11:33 AM
I moved from Arch to Slackware to avoid systemd if that counts for anything. It's not that I don't like it particually it's more I am stuck in my ways. If Slackware adopted systemd I would probably move to a BSD if it had better support for my hardware.

Teufel 11-06-2014 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartgymnast (Post 5265523)
The init system is same as DE.
you have multiple choices, you can use them side by side.
KDE - GNOME - XFCE (to name a few)
sysvinit - Runit - systemd - RCopen
I know GNOME already made them statement that systemd will not be a hard dependency, in fact since 3.14 they are working with freebsd, to make sure it runs on their systems.
GNOME and systemd devs. had an discussion about it, and DE's should be talking to dbus.
Wrong point. KDE team doesn't develop and support Gnome, XFCE people doesn't maintain KDE.
Each team works with their product only. Because they can't work on two or more DEs simultaneously. It's impossible. In the same reason once systemd will be adopted, another init will be dropped - the number of maintainer is limited, they just can't redouble their efforts or redouble their number.
So this will lead either to two semi-maintained projects, or (more likely) one of them will be abandoned.
And we know which one will be abandoned, isn't it? Just remember what was occured with Arch legacy init.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 AM.
Page 23 of 113 « First 132122 23 24253373 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page