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".