4 ms·
So how many years of discussion have to happen before you would consider it thoroughly discussed? How many years of top distro's using it by default before you
by toolz 12y ago
So how many years of discussion have to happen before you would consider it thoroughly discussed? How many years of top distro's using it by default before you would consider it vetted?
- agumonkey 12y agoFrom my interpretation of smhenderson's post, one of Debian values was a very slow pace of change and old but well known pieces. In this light, systemd still seems too controversial. Fedora adopted it because it was an in-house project, archlinux tries to use cutting edge as much as possible, so it's irrelevant for that interpretation. I only read part of the Debian voting process, it's wasn't years but I admit not knowing how long systemd was discussed in Debian's ML before that. On archlinux board's, adoption was quickly reached (without too much user troubles).
- digi_owl 12y agoWell in the typical Arch way it was a case of dictatorial "we are going systemd, deal with it". Also one of the busybodies within systemd development is directly involved with Arch maintenance... Btw, the big pedia claims that OpenSuse and Mageia(?) also use systemd. At least one of them is a fork of what used to be a RHEL fork with a more desktop orientation. Then again, the adoption may well have happened before systemd started absorbing/reimplementing so many other functions.