On Thu, October 9, 2014 7:37 am, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Leon Fauster <leonfauster at googlemail.com> > wrote: >> >> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Only if the design was bad in the first place. And if the design was >>> really bad, there wouldn't be any users to infuriate by breaking the >>> interfaces they use. But the unix design that linux and linux >>> distributions copied was pretty good, including the way init started >>> things. >> >> was - the requirements at that time were nearly/completely >> different. We have different scenarios right now. > > Really? What application could you not start with sysv init syntax? > What CPU has become too slow to start things serially? What feature > do you need that could not have been added without breaking other > existing work? > <irony> The feature of advantage is fast boot. As Linux like Windows needs reboot often, it is awfully important. And all of you, dinosaurs (who saw years long uptime of Linux machines) who don't care that boot takes 60 seconds now instead of 4 minutes should just shut up. </irony> Let me second what you said. I also would add: In my opinion it is not clever to keep settings that are expressed by plain ASCII text being marked up, "dressed into junk", XML. For human to read them you need "undress" them (you GUI guys may forget that your GUI does that - not literally of course), and to pass them to systemd itself one has strip the junk (XML markup). The same goes about firewalld. But what am I doing. The World passed that point... Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++