Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:27:54 +0100
> Rowland Penny <rpenny241155@???> wrote:
>
>
> > It is probably easier than that, the Samba 'configure' code has a
> > '--without-systemd' switch.
> >
> > Just need to alter debian/rules etc
> >
> > Rowland
>

>        *     *
>         \ o /
>          \|/ 
>           |               C O O L
>          / \  _  
>         /   \/
>        /
>       -

>
> My suspicion is that the --without-systemd switch represents a huge
> defeat for Lennart and the Redhats. When Debian decided to switch in
> the summer of 2014, the systemd cartel were strutting and boasting that
> they would soon own the world.
>
> Now, 2 years later, Samba, a bedrock "killer app" for Linux, still has
> a --without-systemd compile option. If Redhat had truly succeeded in
> their plans, such an option would be unneeded and useless in 2016.

Hi Steve,

Most everyone makes their code configurable. Only a few
desktop developers, who need a lot of pixie dust, and
e.g. Debian packagers, who tend to choose the --with-systemd
options, or depend on other modules that require systemd.

I got a different perspective on Red Hat when I listened to
a short talk by Daniel Sterling, "Big Data on Little Linux,"
covering the many issues that arise in trying to grind
through large data sets using Linux and NFS.

Red Hat was called out as providing less buggy kernels
and drivers needed when pushing the envelope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG9FIFKDKOU

Joel

> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> June 2016 featured book: Troubleshooting: Why Bother?
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/twb
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

--
Joel Roth