Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday February 26 2014, @12:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the Boot-him?-I-just-met-him! dept.

jbernardo writes:

"Having had several issues with systemd, and really not liking the philosophy behind it, I am looking into alternatives. I really prefer something that follows the Unix philosophy of using small, focused, and independent tools, with a clear interface. Unfortunately, my favourite distro, Arch Linux, is very much pro-systemd, and a discussion of alternatives is liable to get you banned for a month from their forums. There is an effort to support openrc, but it is still in its infancy and without much support.

So, what are the alternatives, besides Gentoo? Preferably binary... I'd rather have something like arch, with quick updates, cutting edge, but I've already used a lot in the past Mandrake, RedHat, SourceMage, Debian, Kubuntu, and so on, so the package format or the package management differences don't scare me."

[ED Note: I'm imagining FreeBSD sitting in the room with the all the Linux distros he mentioned being utterly ignored like Canada in Hetalia.]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tempest on Wednesday February 26 2014, @02:07PM

    by tempest (3050) on Wednesday February 26 2014, @02:07PM (#7280)

    I have to agree. If systemd is really so bad, distros will emerge without it. If systemd generally works and your distro can't handle it, that's your distros fault not systemd. Since all my systems are FreeBSD (or Gentoo) this doesn't affect me much, but I worry about software dependancies with systemd leading to other systems losing software support.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:24PM (#7905)

    Alas, systemd opponents seem to have a big propensity to whine about systemd but also a big aversion to do the work to propose an alternative.
    It's not that hard: if there are enough people who really want to avoid systemd, they can get together to build a new distro that doesn't use systemd and work on an alternative implementation for the systemd interfaces that software depend on.
    Up until now, only Canonical did any work going this way and since they've decided they'd go the systemd way, someone has to step up and do the job if there is to be an alternative.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2014, @05:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2014, @05:08PM (#8048)

      To be fair, every operating system to ever exist in the entire universe had an alternative to systemd, which is great because systemd didn't exist back then.

  • (Score: 1) by bluefoxicy on Monday March 10 2014, @11:08PM

    by bluefoxicy (3739) on Monday March 10 2014, @11:08PM (#14352)

    It's just business as usual. Looks like this [], mostly.

    Look at telecom adoption. look familiar? [] Particularly 2G to 3G, with EDGE being 2G hacked up to run as 3G. But of course this gives a display of return of transmission speed versus engineering effort. If we switched it to cost versus return, the curves would squash vertically but follow the same pattern--they'd look similar to the above--because businesses won't output more money for a lower return.

    The theoretical curve applies more to open source software than business: engineering effort versus useful output is essentially the only meter used for building something you're giving away for free. You don't need a business case when your only motivation is "make this better"; instead, you put in the least effort to get the most improvement until you hit diminishing returns, and then somebody starts hammering out something brand new that comes around not quite working well until it's had the bugs worked out. That's more likely to follow the theoretical curve--unless somebody realizes, "Hey guys, we've been doing this jackass wrong all this time," and a new technique quickly emerges as a disruptive technology.