On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev ....
> I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the
> design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.
Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing
systems ?
It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing
Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in
English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission.
Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement
and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be
implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing
systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to
properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this
occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence
of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense.
Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require
stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where
disruption is a scheduled "design goal".
Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to
tread.
Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the
non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
