|
|
|
|
|
|
by e7620
4284 days ago
|
|
|
I've been also using systemd since Arch switched over, I've discovered bugs and vulnerabilities. But the thing is, if you're happy with systemd and works well for you, great! I've seen this very prevalent attitude in systemd users, the less they know, more fervently defend systemd, even if they think it sucks, they tell you it's the best thing ever because they're using it, and they always have to use the best. Arch is bleeding edge, if you've never seen a bug, you haven't been paying attention. So, again, you've never suffered a problem with systemd. Now do a web search, and in less time it takes to write "[citation needed]", you'll see that this is real. Sorry, but systemd has bugs, just like every other program, but by being so intermingled with the kernel, the consequences are much worse. |
|
|
WHAT? I thought systemd was flawless by virtue of being the creation of god-emperor Poettering. /s
>asserts that there are critical bugs that make the system unbootable
>asserts that changes to systemd break everything
>refuses to provide source
Why should I look for data to support your assertions? If there is any data supporting your assertions you should know where to find it already.