On 07/09/2014 04:27 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: > >> If you don't follow the Fedora lists and get involved, well, >> you get what you pay for, I guess. > Following the list just makes it more painfully clear that they don't > care about compatibility or breakage of previously working > code/assumptions or other people's work. It's all about change. ... c'est la vie. The only constant is change. Some changes stick; some don't. Unix itself was a major change in the early 70's, and many of the same issues I see being mentioned here are rehashes of the Unix fragmentation grenade back in the 80's. People reinvent the wheel, and sometimes their wheel is better, and sometimes it isn't. And always a very vocal group will gripe against the wheel being reinvented at all, regardless of whether it might be better or not. This wheel might be better and it might not; we'll never know if we don't try it out. Experience and tradition must be tempered with empirical results from actually experimenting with the new. (And do note that 'tempered' does not mean to do away with experience and tradition......). > Backwards compatibility isn't a big/little thing, it is binary choice > yes/no. If you copy stuff over and it doesn't work, that's a no, and > it is going to cost something to make it work again. Have you checked how compatible or not systemd is for the init scripts of the packages about which you care (such as OpenNMS)? > Did you keep track of the time you spent keeping [desktop RHL 5.x] working? > My employer put a line item on my timesheet for it, so, yes, I kept track of it and got paid for it. Those paper files have long since been tossed, since that was fifteen-plus years ago. My employer was paying me to keep the server up, I had an employer who understood the value of training, and that employer definitely understood the value of dogfooding.