Hi Heiko, On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why am I not surprised? Why should you be? I'm not. I don't think anyone finds it surprising that software has bugs, or that actively developed software has the occasional regression. It will happen from time to time, even with systemd. It will happen more with systemd than with sysvinit. The reason is that sysvinit is no longer being developed, and no changes means no regressions. No surprises here. > Yes, binary init system is so much better than a script based init > system. The correct comparison would be with sysvinit and not with initscript (as the bug is in PID1 and not in any of the helpers/serivce files). > And Poetterix is so damn good, so advanced, such an evolution > and so much better than the common and over 40 years well tested > sysvinit. > > Come on systemd fanboys, here you have the first example. There's more > to come. I'll get my popcorn. I hope you realise that when you speak of "Poetterix" and "fanboys" you are being a troll (there is no "opinion" in here, just inflamatory rhetoric). You are trying to make people angry rather than contribute to the discussion. As a whole, your message did not add anything useful, as you merely said "I told you so". We all are able to see that there was a bug, we all are able to see that this is very unfortunate. However, no one expected bugs never to happen in testing. It happens in all software, from the kernel up. We obviously strive to make it a rare occurrence, but especially architecture-specific bugs might be hard to catch. I'd respectfully request you to stay on-topic and constructive in your future contributions to this mailinglist. Cheers, Tom
