On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Paul Robert Marino <prmari...@gmail.com> wrote: > I somewhat agree however I still think systemd needs an other year or two to > bake before its enterprise ready. > > 1) the scripts are still too new and most of them haven't been thoroughly > thought out yet. There are a lot of things that change when you switch from > simple start and stop scripts to using an active process manager which take > time for the developers and system administrators to wrap their heads > around. Frankly they haven't had enough time to do it well and I will have > issues all over the place with 3rd party applications when RHEL 7 is > released because of it. > > 2) systemd isn't the first of its kind on Linux in fact Gentoo Linux has > been doing something similar for years with its startup scripts. > > 3) in many ways the design of systemd is very desktop centric which is great > for a desktop or laptop but horrible in an enterprise. Frankly I'm horrified
+1 and I don't care if my servers take a few seconds longer to boot. Also, one of the first things I do when configuring a server is remove NM. When running Fedora 19 the new gnome is also too foreign to me. I much prefer xfce instead. I wish they had made that the default for rhel7. The trend towards binary log files is also a little uncomfortable. I'm so used to using simple tools to parse log files. > by the idea that if a inexperienced sysadmin does a default install instead > of our standard nobase install that someone my come along and stick a WiFi > dongle in a box and create a loop or security hole because it was > immediately detected and the services to auto configure it were > automatically started without a authorized sysadmins intervention. By the > way that is a scenario that I've seen users attempt before because they > needed access from their desktop and didn't want to wait for or were just > too lazy to request a firewall change. For that matter I had a consultant > just this past week accidentally create a loop on my network because he had > made a mistake in the network configuration and NetworkManager decided to > bridge several interfaces ( I never thought I'd hear my self say this but > thank god for spanning tree). So auto starting and restarting services based > on things like hardware event are scary to me for good reasons. Additionally > if I have a service that occasionally crashes due to a bug or > misconfiguration but systems keeps relaunching it I may never know I have a > problem I'd rather the process crash and get a one time complaint or trouble > ticket from the user and fix it than have users grumbling how my systems > suck because they keep having problems but the guy in the NOC sees all green > on his screen when the user calls and keeps dismissing their complaints > without further investigation. > > > -- Sent from my HP Pre3 > > ________________________________ > On Aug 18, 2013 9:29, Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, zxq9 <z...@zxq9.com> wrote: > > >> * The old init system was complicated (in that the defaults aren't >> uniform). >> Familiarity with the system triumphed over lack of clear implementation >> and >> lack of documentation. > > All Linux users and developers were victims of laziness and inertia > when we stuck with the mess that sysvinit scripts are for as long as > we did, especially after Solaris and OS X showed the way with SMF and > launchd. We should've at least moved to declarative init files with > one bash/dash/sh script to start and stop daemons; we didn't and we've > fortunately gone beyond that with systemd. > > >> * systemd is a huge effort that isn't doing anything to remedy the >> situation. > > One or two years after the release of EL-7, everyone'll wonder what > all the anti-systemd fuss was about...