hellekin <hellekin@???> writes:
> Arnt Karlsen:
>>
>> aaaaaaaaaaaaand: https://tails.boum.org/news/version_2.0/index.en.html
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Change to systemd as init system
>
> I think it makes sense for a Live CD desktop distribution to do so, as
> it doesn't have to deal with legacy nor with broken upgrades, and it's
> not upgrading a running server system with custom scripts. If it
> crashes, damage is very limited.

When I encountered Linux for the first time (RH 3.0.3), one of its most
impressive properties was that the startup systems was implemented in a
simple, high-level, interpreted language instead of being an
undocumented an undocumented, intransparent vendors-supplied piece of
binary "magic" beyond the each of users of the system the OSes I had
known until then used to use. That this was even possible had never
occured to me.

This means to me, systemd is a generally laughable attempt at rolling
time back to 199x (if not earlier), conducted by people with an
'allergy' against unfamiliar innovations, and I consider the other design
much more sensible. It surely warrants improvement but everything can be
improved. That's called technical progress. "Start from scratch and do
it right this time!", however, is "running in circles", or, as John Kay
(AFAIK) aptly put it

    It's so easy
        To do nothing
        When you're busy
        Night and day
        Take a step
        In on direction
        Take a step
        The other way