On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan(a)jonmasters.org> wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:35 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the bigger question is why are we doing this?
> >
> > There's some motivation here:
> >
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
> >
>
> I was pretty clear in everything you cut off about the whole "You know
> what people need, they need this" and the whole developers making things
> for sysadmins because they think sysadmins need it thing. 0pointer.de is
> Lennart's post. If this is only being developed and driven by the same
> people perhaps we should just step back, get it functioning for a while,
> _then_ lets talk about replacements. If you guys feel that strongly about
> it, you'll still feel that way a year from now when the whole system is
> developed and working right? Perhaps then it can go into Fedora?
>
> This should probably say "systemd for F16"
+1 FWIW. I'm not a huge sysv fanboi either, but I do care about the
experience of sysadmins and the upstream for other projects, and I would
like to see some soak time for this before everyone needs to switch. I
can otherwise just imagine the amount of documentation out there -
books, online resources, etc. that will all be out of date for Fedora
(and perhaps other projects later) but not for other distributions.
FWIW this is the reason why upstart pretty much ended being a renamed
sysvinit without offering any benefits because people are afraid of
change.
The books won't magically be rewritten in time for F16 (people aren't
even using systemd so why write / update books) ?
Isn't it one of Fedora's missions to innovate and lead and not stay in
the past forever because people are afraid of change?
(Note: I am not addressing a particular change here; but people's
resistance against *any* changes=).