This is a decent little read though: http://allanmcrae.com/2012/08/are-we...es-arch-linux/
I don't think I'm too concerned. Truth be known I did try Systemd on my netbook a month or so ago (on Arch). It was extremely simple to hook up and use, though it didnt make much difference on this hardware. Though I imagine converting to it fully will mean it'll be a bit different to the way I had it installed.
Slackware isn't all that bad..it was the first distro I used in my early days of puttering with Linux back in '94. It took a lot of hair pulling but I got it working pretty nicely after 2 years so been using it for like a total of 10 years
Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento
Last I heard Debian is considering making the switch to systemd too
Funny since there already is a "registry". Though desktop specific. Gnome uses gconf (or whatever it's called now) which basically is a registry for Gnome. KDE doesn't have that, rather is has per app configuration files.
Originally Posted by energyman
The problem with systemd is that it’s again something new to learn and setup (more complicated than rc.conf) to do the exact same thing as before. I’d rather not have to do that. But then as all Arch devs seem to be unanimous on this, I’ll just have to take the time for it…
Originally Posted by drag
you kknow what kicks ass? Not using a superfluos sound daemon in the first place.
Gnome has already switched to a registry for a while now and they run a background process dedicated to it.
Originally Posted by energyman
The next step of computation technology will be to aid in some real ai way. For this to achieve there might be needed some thousands of different services waiting to get in action. Alike to get stoped in an interdependend way. I don't think this can be done via a simple rc file ...
Users loosing control?
I stopped using my installation of Arch when upgrading offered NO OPTION but to install systemd.
My experience with other distros using systemd is: If it works you don't even know its there.
If it doesn't work YOU, the user have little control, or knowledge, of how to fix it.
My view is that systemd is a complicated solution looking for a problem to fix.
I had NO PROBLEMS with booting, that I could not fix, until systemd came along.
If you just use the basic install a distro gives you, likely you won't care about systemd.
Assuming the distro developers can learn how to setup and use systemd.
If you are a tweaker, and like to change things, systemd has a LONG way to go before it is usable.
Perhaps in the future 3rd party developers will produce an interface for humans to control systemd.
Until that time I still have other options. Debian and slackware to name a couple.
Wow, so much FUD in this thread, just like all the threads in the arch-general mailing list.
A. You can still use rc.conf, some of the Arch devs have worked hard to make their systemd be able to read the DAEMONS array so no changes necessary, though they are recommended to match upstreadm.
B. The main selling point of systemd is not speed, though it is much faster. The reason the devs are all so eager to switch is because systemd service files are MUCH easier to write than initscripts. Not only are they much faster to write but they're portable so the hope is upstream will eventually be able to maintain their own service files and the devs jobs will be much easier. People do things that make their lives easier - surprise!
C. They didn't force you to install systemd, systemd-tools is a collection of small binaries which are useful to any init system - Arch's initscripts make heavy use of them. AFAIK they're still not forcing you, but it will be default and they probably will force you eventually.
Another thing about systemd is that it uses the Linux kernel more. Other init systems usually only make use of POSIX calls. Linux-exclusive features are not used at all.