On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev ....> I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the > design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ? It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal". Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread. Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote:> On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev .... > >> I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the >> design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. > Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing > systems ? > > It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing > Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in > English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. > > Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement > and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be > implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing > systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to > properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this > occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence > of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. > > Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require > stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where > disruption is a scheduled "design goal". > > Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to > tread. > > Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the > non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. > >There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!....) I'm just saying. EGO II
On Sun, January 11, 2015 2:05 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:> On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev >> .... >> >>> I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the >>> design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init >>> systems. >> Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing >> systems ? >> >> It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing >> Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in >> English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. >> >> Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement >> and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be >> implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing >> systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to >> properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this >> occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence >> of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. >> >> Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require >> stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where >> disruption is a scheduled "design goal". >> >> Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to >> tread. >> >> Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the >> non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. >> >> > There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you > currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!....) I'm > just saying. >Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your thought half a step farther ;-) Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:02:26PM +0000, Always Learning wrote:> Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing > systems ? > > It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing > Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in > English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission.Systemd does support managing and starting SysV init scripts. In fact, it does a better job than SysV init does -- putting them into their own cgroup and capturing stdout and stderr into the journal. Making 'chkconfig' and 'service' work with systemd isntead of SysVinit makes it so you have a fairly minimal impact, interface-wise.> Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement > and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be > implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing > systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to > properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this > occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence > of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense.I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered... just once... that maybe the design of RHEL7 might have happened in a planned manner, with the full understanding of its developers? You make it seem like the multi-year development effort to produce RHEL7 was done in some sort of drunken haze by untrained interns with no scrutiny by experienced linux developers. I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument other than ad hominem and "change = bad". -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 17:00 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote:> I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply > absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument > other than ad hominem and "change = bad".Disruption = BAD Gentle change / gradual change = GOOD :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.