Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th May 2011 18:59 UTC, submitted by fran
Gnome Something's - once again - brewing within the GNOME project. While a mere suggestion for now, and by no means any form of official policy, influential voices within the GNOME project are arguing that GNOME should become a full-fledged Linux-based operating system, and that the desktop environment should drop support for other operating systems such as Solaris and the BSDs. I have a feeling this isn't going to go down well with many of our readers.
Thread beginning with comment 474042
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Sad but inevitable
by gilboa on Fri 20th May 2011 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad but inevitable"
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

I assume that you have come to this conclusion following your vast experience in using systemd under the yet to be released Fedora 15 for... 2 days?

*Sigh*

- Gilboa

Edited 2011-05-20 22:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Sad but inevitable
by pfgbsd on Sat 21st May 2011 02:00 in reply to "RE[4]: Sad but inevitable"
pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12

I assume that you have come to this conclusion following your vast experience in using systemd under the yet to be released Fedora 15 for... 2 days?

*Sigh*

- Gilboa


Heh.. that was funny!

I have years of experience managing the alternatives .. and they work just fine. systemd may work very well for a toy system but is very non-unixy and keeps growing new atrocities every day.

Do I need really fast reboots? Not really, even on my desktop I don't reboot more than twice a day and then it's the graphic environment, not the init procedure, that takes more time.

It may take some more seconds to boot.. but I'll stay with KDE ... Thanks !!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Sad but inevitable
by gilboa on Sat 21st May 2011 10:38 in reply to "RE[5]: Sad but inevitable"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Heh.. that was funny!


Wasn't meant to make you lough, but OK, thanks, I guess.

I have years of experience managing the alternatives .. and they work just fine.


So was DOS, Windows 3.11 and Linux kernel 2.2.

systemd may work very well for a toy system but is very non-unixy and keeps growing new atrocities every day.


Like you, I've got far too many years of experience in developing application (and servers) that run on Unix and Linux.
And each and every time I had to manually develop some way to handle socket activation and service dependencies.
Now, given my very limited experience with systemd I can't really comment on it - but I can say that it's time to kill SysV and friends.
As much as I dislike Windows service manager's way of doing things (the management and control interfaces are far too complex and the service registration and logging can easily get damaged leaving you with a dead service with no way of knowing what's wrong) - their dependency tracking is far more suitable to this day-and-age than the ancient runlevel used by SysV.

Do I need really fast reboots? Not really, even on my desktop I don't reboot more than twice a day and then it's the graphic environment, not the init procedure, that takes more time.


I don't think you fully understand what systemd is trying to achieve.
Fast boot is a ***minor*** part of it.

It may take some more seconds to boot.. but I'll stay with KDE ... Thanks !!


As the uptake of systemd like alternative init systems increases, it's just a matter of time till KDE faces the same problem GNOME is.
(For the record, I'm mostly using KDE/Fedora 14 and I reboot my machines [including my netbook]) only when there's a major security fix that requires a new kernel [practically never])

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2