From: rich@example.invalid   
      
   Sam  wrote:   
   > Rich writes:   
   >   
   >> Sam  wrote:   
   >> > I distinctly recall this being one of the original sales pitches for   
   >> > systemd: finally you can stop services reliably, and no more   
   >> > headaches with rogue processes still churning and creating havoc.   
   >>   
   >> One of the earliest 'sales pitches' for systemd was "faster bootups"   
   >> with the 'dependency based startup" systemd brought along.   
   >   
   > I do recall that too.   
   >   
   >> I seem to recall the "clean shutdown of services/daemons" part being   
   >> tacked on later when "faster bootups" didn't gain the requisite   
   >> traction.   
   >   
   > Then, I suppose, my identical sales pitch won't gain much traction either.   
   > Especially since the imported initscripts' containers' serial sequencing   
   > gets diligently replicated.   
      
   Well, you are not starting with "faster booting" and then pivoting when   
   it turns out that "faster booting" is not a big enough incentive to   
   jump to your new system.   
      
   But you are also fighting against the huge installed base of current   
   systemd, and that will be difficult to dislodge (just as classic init   
   took some time for systemd to dislodge) because for most, if what they   
   have now works, they don't see a reason to switch.   
      
   Now, maybe you have an angle with Slackware, but for that you'd need to   
   be conversing wth Patrick rather than us.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)