On 05/06/2016 08:38 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 3:13 am, Gary Stainburn wrote: >> On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere. This >>> is >>> not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed them >>> to >>> define their statute. >>> >>> People split into two groups: >>> >>> Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from formerly >>> Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS Windows-like), >>> and >>> this is bad. >>> >>> Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems >>> evolve >>> and you better keep up with changes. >>> >>> Therefore, for new person who is about to, let's say, upgrade Linux >>> system >>> to the version with systemd, there is a decision that will define that >>> person's future maintenance of this new system. And the decision has to >>> be >>> made before upgrade. Luckily for those who do decide to go with systemd, >>> bugs (that always are present in new software) are being solved. Luckily >>> for those who do not accept fundamental changes systemd brings (like >>> binary logs or config files infested with XML garbage - sorry if I'm >>> missing or misinterpreting something) there are Unix system one can >>> migrate machine to. >>> >>> Either way one has to read and estimate what making that step (upgrading >>> to systemd, firewalld based Linux or switching to some flavor of Unix) >>> will entail in a long run for that server and the server admin. Either >>> way, as in one of Unix handbooks they stress: read carefully the upgrade >>> notes! >>> >>> I hope, this helps someone. >>> >>> Valeri >>> >> >> I understand the arguments for the move to systemd - and I also understand >> the >> points of those arguments. Like most arguments, there are some valid and >> positive points and some not so. >> >> There are times - such as the encompassing of the name resolver code - >> where >> it just seems a case of replacing old, mature code with new untested code >> for >> no reason. >> >> Either way, I now have to manage both traditional and systemd based >> systems. >> Okay, it just means learning new toolsets, but it's something else I have >> to >> learn, and something else I have to cope with for my bespoke systems and >> services. > > I guess, I didn't stress it well enough: read the upgrade notes! In case > of switching to systemd: read about what the change means. > > In other words, at least in minds of those who decided to migrate to UNIX, > this change it not just about learning new tools. It is about how the > system works. I am not going to argue they (refugees to UNIX) are right, > or proponents of systemd (and friends) are right. The important part is > that each weighed the changed and will deal with the consequences of the > decision made conscientiously. But for that (to make good decision), once > again: > > Read the "upgrade notes" [systemd documentation in this case]! This is the > decision about your system and its future life. Right. And I do want to point out, this list is really not the place to discuss the positives and negatives of systemd vs. upstart vs. SysV. The goal of CentOS is to build RHEL source code with the absolute minimum changes required for branding. So, we get the init system that is in the source code. Having that kind of discussion on a Fedora list might be appropriate if you are not a RHEL customer or on a RHEL list if you are. > >> >> What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has been >> implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system, not at a >> major >> release level.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
