[arch-general] Lennart Poettering on udev-systemd

[Calvin Morrison]

On 14 August 2012 11:07, Fons Adriaensen <fons at linuxaudio.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:55:02AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>
>> >after switching to it I prefer it because I just find it a lot easier to
>> >deal with than sysvinit IMO. For example I find systemd's .service files so
>> >much cleaner and easier to understand than initscripts, they are also
>> >portable and can be included in upstream packages.
>> >
>> >This "Oh my god systemd is hard and I'm being forced to use it!" FUD I keep
>> >seeing is getting pretty ridiculous... Even if arch does someday switch to
>> >systemd, I'm sure initscripts will be supported for quite some time, giving
>> >plenty of time to learn/transition (again really not that hard) in the
>> >event that that ever happened.
>> >
>> >Arch has always been a bleeding edge constantly changing distro, if you
>> >want everything to stay the same forever, use debian. No matter what
>> >happens with this whole sysvinit vs systemd kerfuffle, you will never be
>> >"forced" to use systemd in arch, just like you've never been forced to use
>> >sysvinit...
>>
>> I don't think you fully understand the issue.
>>
>> If udev was still a "stand alone package" and not part of systemd as
>> it is now....
>> Then systemd would be an alternative init system and all the other
>> init systems would not be impacted and one could use any of the
>> system init methods he chooses.  If you would want systemd becames
>> it works for you great...knock yourself out...but on the other hand
>> when this thing becomes fully matured then systemd will be the only
>> one that works well with udev and everyone else be damned.
>>
>> Lennart Poettering by his own submission stated that he wanted udev
>> as part of systemd and that he doesn't care about any other init
>> system that would use udev.  As with Lennart it seems as it's my way
>> or the highway...which indeed is the problem.
>
> I agree. It's not systemd being 'hard' that scares most people
> who object to it - that is a misrepresantatio. In fact I'm pretty
> sure systemd is easier to use and configure than initscripts.
>
> BTW has anyone looked at upstart ? The current AUR package is
> out of date (and I'm looking at some deadlines so this is not
> the time for experiments), but it has excellent documentation
> <http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/>, much better than anything
> I've seem for systemd so far, and after spending some time
> reading the above reference I must say I like it. At least
> it doesn't have that ugly and infantile syntax and it looks
> like was designed by programmers instead of by a kid.
>

That is because it was. It was designed and planned before writing, it
is backwards compatible, it has very good documentation and unit
testing. I approve of upstart as a project even though I do not use
it.