On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:02:26PM +0000, Always Learning wrote:
> 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.
Systemd does support managing and starting SysV init scripts. In
fact, it does a better job than SysV init does -- putting them into
their own cgroup and capturing stdout and stderr into the journal.
Making 'chkconfig' and 'service' work with systemd isntead of
SysVinit makes it so you have a fairly minimal impact,
interface-wise.
> 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.
I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered... just
once... that maybe the design of RHEL7 might have happened in a
planned manner, with the full understanding of its developers? You
make it seem like the multi-year development effort to produce RHEL7
was done in some sort of drunken haze by untrained interns with no
scrutiny by experienced linux developers.
I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply
absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument
other than ad hominem and "change = bad".
--
Jonathan Billings <billings@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
