On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 10:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Would you rather a bunch of that "magic" of PID 1 that systemd handles > get shoved into the kernel (so that PID 1 isn't so special)? Why should the systemd monolithic bloatware be shoved into the kernel, especially when you claim the kernel has "over four million lines of code!" ? Seems like a tactical diversion to deflect genuine concerns about the vast plethora of alleged systemd advantages. When something new is proposed and it is substantially and conspicuously superior, then everyone wants it. Never noticed that enthusiasm with systemd's imposition - an imposition nurtured and promoted by the non-everyday business work environment of experimental Fedora. Most dedicated users of RHEL and Centos, Scientific Linux too, want stability which includes not changing everything every 6 months (á la Fedora) or learning alternative methods of doing well mastered tasks (á la Systemd - does the 'd' stand for dunce ?) Good things quickly and easily attract supporters yet systemd lacks the hordes of anxious and eager users demanding systemd replaces the fundamentals of their smooth working computer systems. Instead we have a few systemd-ers, avoiding the contentious absence of adequate discussion before the systemd imposition, trying to hypnotise us into loving their systemd. Meanwhile those who adore stability and dislike bloatware worry about convoluting systemd tentacles protruding into their well-running systems. One dreads a systemd malfunctioning especially when everything could become inoperable. > A vocal group doesn't like change, argues against it, and presents > itself as the voice of the silent majority (that somehow keep > upgrading to new versions with all the terrible changes). I genuinely and consistently embrace improvements. I remain unconvinced system-dunce fulfils my change-advantage criteria. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.