Re: systemd vs SystemV

Somehow this thread started as "libcupsfilters: mupdf not Required".  I'm renaming it.

[snip]

> To drop SysV is a mistake.  To drop gnome would have been the better
> choice.  For LFS and as a statement to the Linux-community.  I've
> suggested that already sometime in October of last year.  I'd also drop
> kde should they also embark on "systemd-only" in the future.  For the
> educational purposes of LFS both are expendable.
> 
> Concerning the "merits" of systemd: they may exist but if so, I've
> missed them.  My experience with it can be summerized like this: PITA.
> Not *one* relevant benefit over SysV did it provide for me.  On the
> contrary.  And after yet another unexplained "A stop job is running..."
> and 90 sec of lost life-time, I ditched it.  I never looked back.  So,
> as far as I am concerned, it may just fade away.

My research into systemd shows it useful for large installations where there are many 
users or a large network of systems.  That is not the environment of typical LFS users.

For the large distros, the "one size fits all" may fit.  Not so LFS.

As I've said in other places, the sysV book is not disappearing.  It will be 
available on the website and most of the packages in the 'rolling release' should 
work OK.  The things missing are "stable" System V releases and validation of the 
instructions.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page