SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Debian Jesse is going to have Gnome3 as the default desktop.
The desktop re-qualification page, used to help choose which desktop will be default, has in the Jesse version a weight for systemd integration, and of course only Gnome3 does it (at least for now). This will surely make the systemd/gnome3 fanbase happy, but possibly will make others unhappy, as it [may] be seen as another step towards mono-culture, until we soon end up with all distros being redhat clones.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Integration with systemd Making Gnome3 the Default Debian Desktop
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 135 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You possess a mind not merely twisted, but actually sprained.
(Score: 1) by gcrumb on Thursday September 25 2014, @04:57AM
Groupthink is clearly against systemd with very little argument against systemd other than some weak philosophical arguments, or saying that old sys v init scripts were good enough. Very few arguments against systemd come from people who've spent any time to understand its architecture, to say nothing of actually *using* systemd.
Those 'weak' philosophical arguments are coming from people whose careers have been spent un-fucking systems. It might be worth your while to take the same advice you give further on, and actually spend some time working and living with the issues that you consider to be so 'weak'. But if you're too impatient for that, you can always try reading this [lusis.org]. Specifically, this from the systemd design docs:
Any experienced systems administrator doesn't need to be told why this is a terrible idea. If you don't see the problem, then you're not really qualified to comment on how strong or how weak the 'philosophical' arguments are. I don't mean that dismissively. On the contrary, I'm suggesting you read up to the point where you do get the point, so that you can educate yourself. It's a shame, really that Sievers and Poettering haven't chosen to the same.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bunfight
(Score: 2) by caseih on Thursday September 25 2014, @06:19PM
Interesting. You keep on saying the very things I called people out for in my original post. Systemd is self-evidently bad. Sorry but that's not an argument. You quote a paragraph on how systemd is architected and say how bad that is but you fail to say specifically why it's bad and what problems are occurring, or even potentially could occur. "An experienced sysadmin doesn't need to be told this is a terrible idea" you say. Go on, tell me why it's a terrible idea. Specifically. Otherwise I stand by my claim that arguments against systemd so far have largely been weak.
The fact is that among the sysadmin communities I'm a member, including the official RHEL mailing lists, there is nary a word about actual systemd problems.
Don't patronize me with saying "educate [yourself]." The onus is on you to provide evidence, not tell me just to go look for it. I keep waiting for specific arguments against and problems with systemd but so far I've been disappointed.
By the way I am an experienced sysadmin, maybe not as much as many of you here. But I've worked with Linux and Unix for 14 years, adminning many servers hosting different kinds of services. I can talk about problems with init scripts because I've worked with them. I've had systems not boot because of a problem with a service starting (OpenLDAP on RH 4 and 5, I'm looking at you!) I've written my fair share of init scripts. I've also worked with other init systems too.