is it the future?

[jd1008]

On 09/22/2014 06:50 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 05:27 PM, jd1008 issued this missive:
>>
>> On 09/22/2014 04:59 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> Richard Hughes wrote:
>>>> On 9 September 2014 08:55, Balint Szigeti <balint.szgt at gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe I have watched too many films...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you have. If you don't like the direction systemd is taking then
>>>> please install one of the BSD's and stop the discussion on this user
>>>> list. Thanks.
>>>>
>>> Spoken like a true fascist, Richard. I checked the duty roster and
>>> it's not your week to be God, either.
>>>
>>> I agree that systemd is totally failing at its original direction, and
>>> note that it has delayed migration to newer RHEL versions due to the
>>> need to find budget for sysadmin training. That said, I am not
>>> claiming that it has not use, just that it addresses (some say
>>> creates) problems many sites don't have.
>>>
>>> If RHEL7 allows, systemd will be removed and sysvinit installed rather
>>> than do that. There are a lot of sysvinit packages there, I suspect
>>> they will do the job. Pushing the init migration out another five
>>> years will let people skip systemd and go to the next big thing
>>> (possibly fatsock from CMU, however they do odd capitalization). Like
>>> many things it is a huge server solution fitted awkwardly to medium
>>> servers, introducing a high complexity to benefit ratio.
>>>
>> While I agree with you Bill in principe, I am always reminded that
>> Fedora is
>> primarily for creating and testing new ideas.
>> Scant few, serious medium to large scale business servers, use Fedora
>> due to
>> unexpected changes that would break the sysadmin's scripts or customary
>> ways
>> of doing things.
>> So, yeah... fedora assumes it's users are it's guinea pigs :)
>
> The danger here is that Fedora generally becomes RHEL (and thus CentOS)
> at some point. As I said before, systemd is a silly, convoluted,
> bloated, overly-complex solution to a problem that never existed.
> Reboots aren't that common (certainly not on the server side of things)
> and trying to parallelize a rare operation is sort of a waste of the
> developers' time. I do wish they'd stop addressing exceptions rather
> than the more common day-to-day stuff.
A horse Designed By Committee?? :) :)
Naaaah - Let's not get into name calling :)