On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:12:35 +0100
"Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" <czarkoff_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Andreas Marschall wrote:
> >
> >Yes, very mature. The first statement I would agree on but in what way
> >is Arch Linux with systemd a disaster? It runs very smoothely and fast
> >over here. Or is it just the usual wannabe elitist bull...?
> You know, the systemd (and friends) actually does a great job of ruining my day with Arch boxes - by now I have one permanently hanging on boot, another booting up twice as slowly as it did before the switch and a third one, which gets misconfigured by the boot-time voodoo. Sure, at least some of these problems are solvable, but I have to invest quite some time into it - and all of it goes into compensating the "improvements" in boot process. And I still can't see any benefit from the switch.
>
> --
> Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
>
The problem I see here is that the big GNU+Linux-distributors tend to
add more and more abstractation layers on top of the base-system to
automate it. A good example is the Gnome NetworkManager, which actually
writes a ton of Mac Addresses into /etc/conf.d/net, making it
impossible to hand-maintain these things afterwards.
I could go on with PAM, ConsoleKit, Gnome KeyringManager and the like,
but I'm sure you know (better) of the metastases of this cancerous
disease so many man-hours were wasted for and which is the reason why
we need multi-million dollar companies behind the big, automated
distributions to fix software which breaks due to that, in the interest
of providing a consistent "user experience".
If you ever dare to dig deeper or if a problem surfaces, you're screwed.
That's why I'm using Gentoo (On my Mac mini :P).
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Sat Nov 30 2013 - 08:51:13 CET