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