On 08-10-2014 14:36, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Robert Arkiletian <robark at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Just a heads up to those who haven't seen this yet. The main author of >> systemd publicly wrote about being basically persecuted. >> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7vd > > But oddly, he didn't even mention that there would be a real simple > solution - just add backwards-compatible improvements instead of > actively wrecking the interfaces everyone else had depended on for > decades. "decades". That, by itself, already calls for an update, no? But so did other systems, but they later found out that sometimes you have to break this backwards to infinity compatibility in order to get some big progress. There is even a name for this break up, and they call it "disruptive events", "disruptive technology", etc. When we have such events, you either get up to speed, change your market field or.. get rusty... Sorry man, that's how it works, everywhere. Although many will probably just "miss the old days".. yeah.. Like for firewalld and systemd, as they were already mentioned in here. It's hard _just because_ it's different. But wait, wasn't iptables different from ipchains? And is nftables going to be as the same as iptables? No, of course not. There are features in nftables that you can't put into iptables cleanly, so you need a new workflow on it. Marcelo