Anton Aylward wrote:
On 06/05/2014 01:27 AM, Damian Ivanov wrote: The other shifteroo Aaron indulges in is ascribing to systemd things that it does not do, things that it uses other services to or other programs to do. Systemd is NOT monolithic any more than the BASH shell is monolithic. The original shell of the V7 era was minimalist and the kind of arguments Aaron is throwing against systemd could equally well be thrown at the BASH shell, if he was the UNIX purist he claims. The BASH shell has many things built into it that were done by external programs back in the V7 days and BASH has an amazing number of user interactive features that cause a great deal of "bloat".
Bzzzt. wrong. Bash as built by openSuse maybe, but those features are configurable when you build the product.. Most importantly -- using bash doesn't preclude being able to use the other utils that it has built-in. Let's see you use SysV init and and a separate resource controller w/systemd. It precludes replacement modules being able to take part. Bash never required moving binaries from /bin to /usr/bin and never dictated how I should boot.
I mention this because systemd is not and is not going to subsume X. <quote src="http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/multiseat/"> systemd, versions 30 and newer, includes support for keeping track of user sessions and seats. </quote>
---- Which is nice in a corporate setting, but you will need special hardware
Systemd is not implementing multi-seat, it is keeping track of resources are assigned to a seat.
And if I want to use 'csh' or 'ksh', then I won't be told I'm not supported? I.e. if I want to stay with SysV boot & init, no problem you are saying, right?
Right now, the X server doesn't handle multi-seat displays properly, so there is a shim in the systemd package to use until the Xorg team complete their work.
---- And then it can be merged into systemd?
So, is this all reliable? Is it all stable? No, like so much of Linux it is being offered for users to experiment with and give feedback. That has always been the Linux tradition.
---- Not really. You have your new and old that can live along side each other. You can choose to run experimental kernel modules or NOT. It isn't forced down your throat. SuSE introduced dummy packages in place of real ones for various sysV related functions so they could forward the actual management to systemd. Never saw such deception with bash emulating ksh or csh.
The shifts from W/XP to W/Vista to W/7 and now W/8 have all been accompanied by outcries.
Right because of changes that were not needed or wanted in the consumer and user community, where actions were taken to get rid of the desktop. Very often MS has been found to be operating under the table with duplicity -- sorta like things have been going w/systemd in the past year or two.
What differentiates Aaron though is his personal attacks and his use of language.
Maybe, but more people seem to be responding to him than when I brought up similar issues. I didn't have the time to post stuff on here and create replacements for stuff axed by suse and shut-out systemd. I'm still booting with separate root+user off a hard disk -- and no systemd. Not sure how long I'll be able to do that -- will depend on how fast systemd kills off the competition. Bash doesn't do that. Comparing bash w/systemd is just outright disingenuous. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org