No, see the reasoning why distros switched, e.g. Debian or Arch. TL;DR: technical merit, no good alternatives existed at the time, as evidence by how the Arch maintainer paraphrased the average systemd critic:
I think there might be this other project that possibly is doing something similar. I don't really know anything about it, but I'm pretty sure it is better than systemd.
Would the landscape be more diverse if other people would have built someone when Poettering first announced systemd? Probably! Did anyone do it? No! OpenRC wasn't a fully fledged alternative back then, Upstart had fundamental design flaws.
But does anyone regret adopting systemd? Also no! Everybody is happy. It's robust, it works, it makes admin lives easier. Users no longer have to deal with zombies, slow boots, and unnecessary services running.
Analog, and what really matters for analog signal is if the wire carries load or not.
Like a phono cable from a record player or a analog signal cable from an old sound card matters, but it doesn't matter how you send the amplified signal to the passive speakers.
This means if you have a HDMI cable going into a decent AVR and speaker cables coming out, you basically can't do anything wrong.
That's weird, other package systems have that solved by recompiling the kernel as a post-update hook that the update command waits for before exiting.
Seems like a bug that fedora's packaging system doesn't work like that.
I guess it'll be a thing of the past when all systems use the new open source Nvidia driver, but there are still a lot of GPUs out there that aren't supported by it.
It's sole reason to exist is “no systemd because we hate it” (their tagline is literally something childish about “real init systems”) and they're willing to drop GNOME and friends on a dime for that goal.
Choosing Artix is like choosing some fork that differentiates itself by refusing to package vim for some reason.
That'll do it. The work might be impressive, but why care about a project that has one purely spite-driven goal that makes no technical or social sense?
It uses real init systems
What a completely childish tagline. Even if there was any merit to all the systemd hate, calling it “not a real init system” is absurd.
They stopped supporting GNOME based desktops and treat that in the most “sour grapes” way imaginable …
That's because I don't know or care if he did something.
All I'm saying that asking for abuse to happen would make one complicit in it happening no matter how actively one could participate in the abuse afterwards.
It's quite a simple concept really. It's while charges starting with “conspiracy to …” exist.
I'm not implying anything specific, I'm saying that if he wanted, he could have done a lot of things by meeting people who would make it happen for him.
No, see the reasoning why distros switched, e.g. Debian or Arch. TL;DR: technical merit, no good alternatives existed at the time, as evidence by how the Arch maintainer paraphrased the average systemd critic:
Would the landscape be more diverse if other people would have built someone when Poettering first announced systemd? Probably! Did anyone do it? No! OpenRC wasn't a fully fledged alternative back then, Upstart had fundamental design flaws.
But does anyone regret adopting systemd? Also no! Everybody is happy. It's robust, it works, it makes admin lives easier. Users no longer have to deal with zombies, slow boots, and unnecessary services running.