On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > > You guys can't just ignore the advantages of systemd and even ignore the > points like they don't exist. Anyone who already has 'enterprise' software already running on a distribution without systemd (e.g. any earlier RHEL/CentOS) clearly is able to get along without those changes. > Here is a prime example. You would need > to use another piece of software to do something systemd does that > sysinit does not. You need something like monit > (http://mmonit.com/monit/) to monitor daemons. There was a time when having one piece of software do one specific job was considered an advantage, since the complexity of large monolithic programs makes them harder to debug. I thing the way systemd will be judged in the long run will relate more to whether bug affecting a large number of systems is allowed to slip through QA. It's not impossible to get this right - Microsoft hasn't made a big mistake in a long time... But it seems risky. But, It doesn't even simplify things. You can't just start someone with 'service program start' and know whether it worked. > I agree with Sven .. this is a religious argument (like vi/emacs or > kde/gnome or even gnome2/gnome3) and not a technical argument now. Yes, definitely - a lot of people would be vocally unhappy if a distribution dropped vi and made everyone use something different - and it is unreasonable to expect anything else. Gnome3 vs gnome2 is a practical matter, though, given that gnome3 doesn't work with x2go. It's not really about 'differences' it is about making changes that break existing infrastructure without regard to the damage to users. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com