On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Well said.... -- mike c
