On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 11:58:25 -0300
Emiliano Marini <emilianomarini82@???> wrote:

> This is a great compilation about systemd from softpanorama.org
>
> http://www.softpanorama.org/Commercial_linuxes/Startup_and_shutdown/systemd.shtml

I'd say this document provides a nice strawman for Red Hat to knock
down. Like so many others, the author lets Redhat and Lennart bring the
war to us:

==========================================================
"I would not deny that improvements in init are possible."
==========================================================

Not a mention of Epoch. Not a word of s6, runit, nosh, perp, busybox
init, or even Suckless Init + daemontools-encore + LittKit. He fights
the war where we're the weakest: the 30+ year old sysvinit.

Now personally, I think the crappiest sysinit setup is superior to
systemd. Devuan's use of sysvinit (a pragmatic move with which I
wholeheartedly agree, at least for now), spits in the face of systemd's
boasts of being so superior to "the old init".

But when we discuss systemd to win away hearts, minds, and peabrains of
fanboiz, we need to instantly broaden the war when they say "it's
better than sysvinit and upstart!" Our next move, whether we believe
their statement or not, should be to broaden the war. We should say
something like:

"What's your obsession with sysvinit? There are lots of init systems
better than both systemd and sysvinit. Why don't you try them?"

Then, when the fanboy starts talking smack about Epoch, runit, s6,
nosh, perp, and the like, you can slaughter him with facts, because
*you* are the person who's actually used them.

SteveT

Steve Litt
October 2015 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times
http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive