The only viable part of systemd that is being feasible as required by software is logind, and logind is already being cloned out or wrapped via an emulation layer between the systemd-shim project (supposedly nearly completed) and ConsoleKit2 (work-in-progress) which was forked by Xfce.

Why abandon a working design model that is familiar and sparks learning fundamentals that are geared towards all of UNIX, not just Linux, all for something that is geared the opposite way. That's almost like saying when it comes to teaching, Slackware is extroverted in its methods geared towards all of UNIX with basics centered around Linux carefully, while CoreOS is introverted in its methods geared only towards Linux. I don't think I could use a system that doesn't teach or present itself to be the most UNIX-Like of distributions if it wasn't that any longer. I learned Slackware enough and was able to carry enough knowledge with me from Slackware to use FreeBSD with minimal relearning, as well as OpenIndiana, Solaris, and other UNIX and UNIX-Like systems. Slackware isn't just an OS distribution that is what you make of it, it's a damn fine teaching tool as well that educates you in UNIX not just Linux.

Patrick probably never intended it to be educational, but his design methods are easy to read into enough that a certain beginner to Linux over a decade ago, who tried out various other distributions and nearly gave up on Linux, decided to try Slackware before throwing in the towel, and actually was about to, read the easy to understand documentation written for human on the disk itself (namely the How-To guide on the DVD), install the OS, set it up, and learn more in four hours on Slackware than he did on about 4 major big brand distributions over the course of 3 years. Simple tools for simple people, doing simple things, simply well, that simply works, while simply teaching things the right way.

If that was abandoned then it wouldn't be Slackware. It would be, but it would feel like it was Slackware in name only. No offense to Patrick, but that's my view of it.

1 members found this post helpful.

@Unixphilosophy

Take a look to chapter 61 of bsdnow.tv. You'll see some putty.exe in Kris Moore's desktop (image attached). That's why he created PC-BSD, he's a Windows user! What I mean is, if FreeBSD had enough money and man power it'd fall in the same "Windowization" process Linux is suffering. It's what the big public want and the rest is forced to follow the cattle.

You'll see a lot of guys here that seem they have chosen Slackware because they liked the logo. There are a lot of Windows users that haven't come out of the closet (just in their dumb universe a Windows like DE is productive, but they're majority and majority is right). Others that think that to satisfy their clients, used to Windows, is enough reason to bloat and ruin Slackware. Others that think that the requirements of a punctual feature in some application (like that you mention about Calibre) is reason enough to redesign a whole operating system.

Personally if I liked the Windows experience or if I had clients that like it I'd just use Windows instead of trying to ruin Unix. That's what I'd advice to Slackware and Linux users in general.

I've wrote a funny rant in my site:

http://roquesor.com/linux-9.php

--

Attached Thumbnails

 

I agree, it's nice to present something familiar to a Windows user migrating, but Windows is not GNU/Linux, nor should GNU/Linux try to be like Windows.

I will say PC-BSD doesn't break away from the core though of BSD. You still have to know how to use FreeBSD tools and methods, especially custom kernel building. However, for easing someone into FreeBSD, PC-BSD is a good stepping stone.

I find Slackware's way of system init, ie. simple SysV-init + collection of BSD-like init scripts one man can fully grasp important as well and belong to Slackware's highlights and distinguish from other distributions.
Take Debian or Fedora/RedHat as an examples with their quite complex system of init scripts, multiple chained and spread in various places, utilizing in-house baked helpers, providing tasks that should not belong to an init script and interfacing with distro-specific configuration tools like Anaconda bringing another layers of a mess, unnecessary complexity as results of NIH syndrome. I can understand systemd could introduce some apparent cleanup there, but rewriting their existing scripts in the right way™ would help as well without breaking compatibility, losing flexibility and make it less deterministic.
Instead of completely understand the current state and fixing it/extend it, do it from scratch and repeat old mistakes again and again.

4 members found this post helpful.

FYI: Most BSD people are Apple users. They have a more relaxed relationship to the "free desktop". Using proprietary software is not against their religious views. BSD code is everywhere anyway.

Yep. I love my iPad and my Apple TV. I'm not xenophobic about software or operating systems.

iPad was one of the best purchases I ever made

1 members found this post helpful.

For me, the iPad and the like are meant to "access" content only.

You still need some kind of good ol' PC for creating the said content.

That's why I find them not worth buying.

But I see your point, hitest.

1 members found this post helpful.

It is great for the couch, for using in bed and, to some extent, to read a thing or two. I use it for college too.

My IPad was free. Wife won it in a raffle. Not picky as its good for couch sitting and reading.

Nice! My only gripe about my iPad is that it was a bit too costly. Perfect for Netflix, checking e-mail, and surfing.

I don't think it's accurate to classify BSD users as pro-Apple users. To me, I'm okay with using an Apple product provided I didn't spend a penny on it, but honestly, I prefer to buy non-Apple products, nor do I use or like OS-X. I'd honestly rather have a Tegra series powered Android or Surface Pro series tablet. My phone is a Nokia Lumia series with WP8.1. Love it too.

1 members found this post helpful.

I will continue to use Slackware for as long as I can make it behave the way I want. If a systemd version is indeed inevitable I will not upgrade, but I will do a parallel fresh test install and give it a shot. Although I rather despise the entire systemd's team cavalier (and forceful) way of doing things and have like many, written a considerable amount of text against it and it's forced adoption, I do have 2 distros installed that switched to it and truth be known I really couldn't feel much difference with the exception of a few months when OpenSuSe would (ironically enough) take forever to boot as it attempted to resolve some parallel issue. IIRC it may have had to do with mounting disks at the time, but it was fixed and now behaves in a reasonable fashion.

That said, I have an older box that I spent years making into a DAW box. I used it for everything but the DAW job was and still is first and foremost. It started as Slackware v10 and was upgraded through to v12.2. At that point I stopped full system upgrades and now, when I use it which has become ocassional rather than everyday, I just upgrade kernels and security patch. It still works just like it always did and is still very useful. This tells me that I will be able to upgrade the parts that require it and continue to use the last non-systemd release for years to come.

Bottom line - I'm not making a hard decision not to use it until I try it, should that ever occur, but I rather hope that day never comes.

That's the whole point of CoreOS: Make all distros a clone of Fedora to help Red Hat.

2 members found this post helpful.

You might need to ellaborate. Considering how probably most BSD users use minimalist-oriented set-ups with WMs, etc., and prefer the command line over GUIs (I did not say all, but probably most.), I fail to see how they are Apple users.

And how does that make them any different than Slackware users? Slackware users call it being "pragmatic," but it makes BSD users Apple lovers?

1 members found this post helpful.