On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:02:26PM +0000, Always Learning wrote: > 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. Systemd does support managing and starting SysV init scripts. In fact, it does a better job than SysV init does -- putting them into their own cgroup and capturing stdout and stderr into the journal. Making 'chkconfig' and 'service' work with systemd isntead of SysVinit makes it so you have a fairly minimal impact, interface-wise. > 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. I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered... just once... that maybe the design of RHEL7 might have happened in a planned manner, with the full understanding of its developers? You make it seem like the multi-year development effort to produce RHEL7 was done in some sort of drunken haze by untrained interns with no scrutiny by experienced linux developers. I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument other than ad hominem and "change = bad". -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>